- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Arguing that an article should be deleted because it is unsourced is absolutely not an argument supported in policy. Arguing that sources cannot be found is another matter but that is clearly not the case here. It is irrelevant to AFD who's responsibility it is provide citations in the article, it is only relevant that it can be cited. Consequently such arguments have been discounted in this close. Spinning Spark 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Rodolfo Freude
- Rodolfo Freude ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unreferenced for 4+ years. No indication of notability. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I can find plenty of sources that mention him, LA Times, NY Times, Independent UK. His name is also mentioned in numerous books, some in other languages. He was an important part of helping prosecuted Nazi's flee to Argentina. Just because it is unreferenced doesn't mean you can't do a simple Google search! Jay Jay What did I do? 19:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - If no one bothers to provide the necessary detail for over four years, then the subject cannot be notable. It is not the reader's obligation to perform additional research.--
Rpclod (
talk) 01:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFIABILITY requires that "All content must be verifiABLE" (emphasis added). It is not bad conduct to find no sources and declare there are none, whether or not there actually are any, but it is bad conduct to declare lack of notability despite the possibility of sources. Furthermore, any assertion that there are none without evidence (i.e. weak sources found, or a link to a search with no sources) is less convincing as a deletion argument. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
WP:Verifiability requires that the editor ensure the verifiability of content that the editor adds. The page does not appear to define "bad conduct" as you describe.--
Rpclod (
talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment (by OP). Nothing in the article is verified. The WP:BURDEN in on the editor who wants to add or remove material. In this case, it would be proper to gut the entire article and then go for a speedy deletion. (In any event, the editor who wished to add the material would have to show verifiability. (Note, the guidance uses the term "must" every so often.)) But I posted this AfD with thoughts that some interested editor would come by and rescue it. – S. Rich ( talk) 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
WP:Verifiability requires that the editor ensure the verifiability of content that the editor adds. The page does not appear to define "bad conduct" as you describe.--
Rpclod (
talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Close advisors" who are not public figures do not pass WP:POLITICIAN in the absence of solid reliable sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but this version does not qualify to be kept in its current state. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 03:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The provided references (specifically the NYT) state that Freude was head of the Argentine intelligence service. That seems to pass notability guidelines, and comes from a reliable source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I added a source in lieu of closing the debate (I would have closed it no consensus). The article is clearly verifiable. Whether it can be expanded is another matter. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Arguing that an article should be deleted because it is unsourced is absolutely not an argument supported in policy. Arguing that sources cannot be found is another matter but that is clearly not the case here. It is irrelevant to AFD who's responsibility it is provide citations in the article, it is only relevant that it can be cited. Consequently such arguments have been discounted in this close. Spinning Spark 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Rodolfo Freude
- Rodolfo Freude ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unreferenced for 4+ years. No indication of notability. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I can find plenty of sources that mention him, LA Times, NY Times, Independent UK. His name is also mentioned in numerous books, some in other languages. He was an important part of helping prosecuted Nazi's flee to Argentina. Just because it is unreferenced doesn't mean you can't do a simple Google search! Jay Jay What did I do? 19:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - If no one bothers to provide the necessary detail for over four years, then the subject cannot be notable. It is not the reader's obligation to perform additional research.--
Rpclod (
talk) 01:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFIABILITY requires that "All content must be verifiABLE" (emphasis added). It is not bad conduct to find no sources and declare there are none, whether or not there actually are any, but it is bad conduct to declare lack of notability despite the possibility of sources. Furthermore, any assertion that there are none without evidence (i.e. weak sources found, or a link to a search with no sources) is less convincing as a deletion argument. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
WP:Verifiability requires that the editor ensure the verifiability of content that the editor adds. The page does not appear to define "bad conduct" as you describe.--
Rpclod (
talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment (by OP). Nothing in the article is verified. The WP:BURDEN in on the editor who wants to add or remove material. In this case, it would be proper to gut the entire article and then go for a speedy deletion. (In any event, the editor who wished to add the material would have to show verifiability. (Note, the guidance uses the term "must" every so often.)) But I posted this AfD with thoughts that some interested editor would come by and rescue it. – S. Rich ( talk) 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
WP:Verifiability requires that the editor ensure the verifiability of content that the editor adds. The page does not appear to define "bad conduct" as you describe.--
Rpclod (
talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Close advisors" who are not public figures do not pass WP:POLITICIAN in the absence of solid reliable sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but this version does not qualify to be kept in its current state. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 03:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The provided references (specifically the NYT) state that Freude was head of the Argentine intelligence service. That seems to pass notability guidelines, and comes from a reliable source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I added a source in lieu of closing the debate (I would have closed it no consensus). The article is clearly verifiable. Whether it can be expanded is another matter. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.