The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Catrìona ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
It violates Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
The subject seems to have done nothing of historical interest. He served in the army without being distinguished, was a teacher without being distinguished, and converted to another faith, for which four decades later he suffered discrimination. These characteristics are shared with millions.
It also violates Notability in general – From
Your first article
We generally judge this by asking if there are at least three high-quality sources that a) have substantial discussion of the subject (not just a mention) and b) are written and published independently of the subject.
Here, there are only two in English and these are in the nature of biographical notes rather than establishing any significant achievements or roles.
Jontel (
talk)
11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Is conversion by a member of an aristocratic family to Judaism in the 19th century significant, interesting or unusual and, even if the latter is the case, is that really noteworthy? Internment by the Nazis, even of aristocrats, is not unusual of itself. Jontel ( talk) 12:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”
Jontel ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability.
If the Basic criteria was the be-all and end-all, it would seem to make a nonsense of WP:BIO’s introductory definition that“Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
Moreover, many of the additional criteria in WP:BIO imply that people who meet the Basic criteria should not be given a page automatically. Further, Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process saysOn Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.
I think that this is such an exception. Jontel ( talk) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Generally speaking, notable subjects will be those for which sufficient sourcing is available, but there are exceptions in both directions
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Catrìona ( talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
It violates Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
The subject seems to have done nothing of historical interest. He served in the army without being distinguished, was a teacher without being distinguished, and converted to another faith, for which four decades later he suffered discrimination. These characteristics are shared with millions.
It also violates Notability in general – From
Your first article
We generally judge this by asking if there are at least three high-quality sources that a) have substantial discussion of the subject (not just a mention) and b) are written and published independently of the subject.
Here, there are only two in English and these are in the nature of biographical notes rather than establishing any significant achievements or roles.
Jontel (
talk)
11:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Is conversion by a member of an aristocratic family to Judaism in the 19th century significant, interesting or unusual and, even if the latter is the case, is that really noteworthy? Internment by the Nazis, even of aristocrats, is not unusual of itself. Jontel ( talk) 12:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”
Jontel ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability.
If the Basic criteria was the be-all and end-all, it would seem to make a nonsense of WP:BIO’s introductory definition that“Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
Moreover, many of the additional criteria in WP:BIO imply that people who meet the Basic criteria should not be given a page automatically. Further, Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process saysOn Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.
I think that this is such an exception. Jontel ( talk) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Generally speaking, notable subjects will be those for which sufficient sourcing is available, but there are exceptions in both directions