Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski

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 delete‎. I do not see a policy-based rationale to keep either page that was not convincingly rebutted. Nobody seriously advanced the claim that these individuals meet GNG. The award to Demeter was suggested as an indicator of notability, but there was not consensus on whether that was sufficient for ANYBIO. Constantin's career as an author was suggested to confer notability, but authors do not get an automatic pass, and if his literary career was of significance, evidence of that was not provided. If, as the creator says, Constantin's plays received coverage in reliable media, that would indeed be evidence of notability, but such coverage would need to be shown at AfD. Violations of COI are out of scope for AfD, but several users noted concerns with COI and promotional editing, which reasonably decreases the weight given to the creator's arguments. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I’m sending these two articles to AfD upon the suggestion of another user who requested assistance in doing so. For the moment, I have no particular opinion on the matter, though I may vote as the discussion progresses. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete. Article on a minor local official, clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Created by a relative as part of a family history project and including much WP:OR. See for example (at the foot of the article): Demeter von Tuschinski's great-grandson Alexander Tuschinski (*1988 in Stuttgart) is a film director and historian. As of 2024, he is researching Demeter von Tuschinski's life and plans to publish a scholarly biography of him. In November 2023, he gave his first public lecture on his research at Bukowina-Institut an der Universität Augsburg, in which he presented the first comprehensive biographical overview of his great-grandfather to date.[citation needed]. Axad12 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, I object the deletion, as I am certain notability is firmly established in both cases:

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski was the highest-ranking Romanian civil servant (edited: English terminology corrected), in interwar Romanian Cernauti, and he was constantly present in public sources until 1940. The Wikipedia article names only some of the approx. 2000 press articles that exist. If he is not considered notable, then, by that logic, no state officials and public figures of equal or lower ranks from interwar Cernauti/Bukovina or other major Romanian cities/regions would be notable enough for Wikipedia. By extension, most people named here would have to be deleted: [Category:20th-century_Romanian_judges] - which cannot be the goal of Wikipedia.

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski, for example, in the 1960s-80s published in both of the two most major, widely circulated and heavily curated German-language Romanian cultural magazines of the era, Volk und Kultur and Neue Literatur. Romanian press wrote about his plays. If none of that is "notable" it would mean that suddenly, many authors who published there and shaped the German-language Romanian 1960s-80s cultural scene would be stripped of their notability, which would (seemingly at random) suddenly exclude a huge part of majorly published Romanian German-language culture from Wikipedia. I plan at some point to create pages for those magazines and other authors who published there - and I am convinced of their notability, particularly given the strict regulations for publishing in Socialist Romania. I'm currently researching the magazine "Volk und Kultur" and its archive for the second volume of Constantin's collected works.

I am Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's great-grandson, which I always openly stated when creating the articles. Both Demeter and Constantin passed away before I was born. I created and researched both articles over several months, and I am currently getting my PhD in history at University Innsbruck about Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's biography. I wrote the articles in a neutral and academic way, careful to not write a subjective view, but only to quote from sources, much like I write my PhD dissertation. I intend to expand both in the future. Except for Axad12 (who recently added a COI tag and told me he would nominate my account to be blocked if I ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again), I heard no objections to the articles, and the objections he voiced on his talk page refer to me being related, not on the content of the article. I believe articles shall be judged independently of who the author is. Every part in the articles is supported by a footnote - the one part Axad12 quotes with [citation needed] originally had a reference to an academic presentation I had held, that another editor removed, and which I plan to replace with a link to a current press article after the deletion discussion. ATuschinski (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the editor above. I did not tell him that I would nominate [his] account to be blocked if [he] ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again. What I have said to him, several times now, is that editors with a COI should use the COI edit request process rather than editing the relevant articles directly, and that if he continues to edit such articles directly (including articles about himself and his film projects) after being advised not to do so on multiple occasions then I shall report the matter to either WP:COIN or WP:ANI, in which case it would be reasonable to assume that his account may be blocked.

However, I do thank the editor above for confirming that much of the work on both of his two family history articles are based on his own original research (i.e. WP:OR).

I would also note that notability, from Wikipedia's standpoint, is based on specific criteria and not on a family member's subjective opinion on whether his family members were 'notable'. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, perhaps it's a misunderstanding, since I am confident you use the WP:OR argument incorrectly here: The extend of my original research can be seen in the footnotes of the articles - mostly links to digitized newspapers, and many weeks of browsing through them online, in addition to newspapers and books available at libraries. I link to the online sources wherever possible. If that were not allowed on Wikipedia, nobody could add or edit anything that requires research in sources that are available online or at libraries. Only at very few spots, I refer to archival files, including their signature (if available) for people curious to check them out. By now, if prefered by the community, I could even replace all of the few archival footnotes with ones to a book I recently published, which is currently added to major libraries. Constantin's bibliography that I made you aware of, which you likely have in mind saying "based on his original research", I was able to put together after months of research in Cluj library's public holdings and by browsing Romanian pre-1984 journals. Anyone can read them at respective libraries; I identified and mention each one in a footnote. Again, if that were against Wikipedia's standards, nobody could add anything gathered from browsing books or journals to this encyclopedia. ATuschinski (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Material in archival files is not published material.

Generally speaking it would be better here if you were to make an argument for the subjects fulfilling the notability criteria.

The purpose of these articles is clearly hagiographical and to promote your family history project (just as all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other). Axad12 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per previous promotional attempts by an account who was presumably your paid publicist, as noted in detail here [1]. Axad12 (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, I argued for the notability in my response, and I believe I never use "a family menber's subjective opinion", but argue with notability criteria within a framework of Romanian history and society. By now, it is for other wikipedia editors to decide about notability and quality of the articles in this discussion. This discussion is about the two articles, their content and notability - not about the author and his presumed motives as you now start speculating about. We both made our points, now others can decide.

Since you now made a wrong presumption and a false claim about me personally, I have to respond to those, but then I will drop the topic: I never employed a publicist on Wikipedia, I find your presumption offensive, and I ask you to stay on topic of notability and quality of the articles you asked to be deleted - about which you already made statments. Your claim "all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other" is false and offensive to the work I have put into Wikipedia for many years in several languages: I have made many accurate edits to topics close to my interests, in various languages, never "promotional" in tone and nature, and I feel strongly the term does not apply: I don't see how, e.g., neutrally worded thorough academic research on my great-grandfather, a civil servant in pre-WW2 Romania, promotes me, a German film director born in 1988. Or me digitizing and adding a photo of Servais Le Roy and Talma I found in a publication? Or adding museums in Vienna that display artifacts of Maximilian I of Mexico? Or expanding and correcting the site of the Order of the Crown of Romania greatly with accurate details? In the latter case, I got initially interested as I had a very clear 1930s photo of Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski wearing the medal that I felt could expand the page well - then, I discovered the page on Wikipedia being very incomplete and partially incorrect, and then I started expanding it with true historical information for a while, so now, it is much more complete and accurate - nothing "promotional" could come from that work for me. Or even edits to the page about me, which I carefully expanded with facts and sources in a neutral, non-promotional tone to make it more accurate, always disclosing my identity, etc.

On your talk page, there is a long discussion you had about me and my presumed motives where you, e.g., argued for deletion of my full, true legal name, date of birth etc. from the Wikipedia site about me which you then deleted - anyone interested in discussing or learning backgrounds could continue there. This discussion here, I believe, shall discuss quality and notability of the two articles you proposed for deletion, which is independent of presumptions about the author, and both you and I already made our points.

For the sake of making this discussion not overlong, I hereby respectfully withdraw from our conversation here, thank you for making your points on notability and quality, I made my points, now others can discuss and I will respond where appropriate. ATuschinski (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: WP:BLUDGEON. Axad12 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter was, perhaps, the highest-ranked civil servant in Cernauti. He was not the highest-ranked state official: after all, the city had a mayor, representatives in parliament, a prefect, and so on. Let’s be precise. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for the correction, please excuse my mixup in terminology - I did mean to say "civil servant", of course. I guess even though I am careful, that little slip in wording reveals I am not an English native speaker: I translated the German term "Staatsbeamter", that was named in the German-language source, which literally translates to "state official", but the correct translation is "civil servant" :-) I just did correct that terminology in the intro of the article, as well - in the body, I already wrote the correct term "civil servant". Thanks for bringing it to attention. ATuschinski (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure what the details are of the court he served as the president of are, but generally appellate court judges would be considering notable under WP:JUDGE as state/province wide officials (appellate courts are usually at a state/province level). There may be an argument Demeter meets WP:NPOL depending on how the court functioned. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a strict reading of the guideline, I don’t think that’s the case: “international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office”. Romania has never been a federal state, its provinces are symbolic/historical with no administrative powers, and its only national court at the time was the High Court of Cassation and Justice. There are 15 appeals courts (12 in the interwar period), but their judges are generally anonymous figures. He could still be notable per ANYBIO, but I don’t see a JUDGE argument here. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I'm not familiar with Romanian courts, but will note that in the U.S. any federal judge meets WP:JUDGE (including any judge on our 13 appellate courts or 94 district courts). If the appellate courts in Romania at this time weren't national courts (and by that its not national in jurisdiction, its created and appointed by the national government instead of a province or local government), then you are right that he doesn't meet WP:JUDGE. But from what you said about Romania not being a federal state, it seems to me that most of the judges would be appointed by the national government and would probably be national judges. You seem to know more about Romania's courts and Judiciary of Romania is not really helpful so if I'm totally wrong please let me know. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 5000 judges in Romania. Each of them is an employee of the national Justice Ministry. Each is named by a national institution and has his appointment signed off by the President of Romania. I really don’t think the guideline is meant to apply to all of them. We are talking about, in many cases, judges in small towns dealing strictly with divorces, inheritances or petty crimes. Anyway, to return to the present issue: I’m not sure exactly how the system worked in the 1920s, but Romania has always been a centralized state on the French model, so it was probably similar.

What concerns me about Demeter is not the exact nature of his office, but the fact that he appears to have fallen totally into oblivion for about 80 years, until being brought back into the limelight by his (aggressively self-promoting) descendant. Interwar Bukovina is actually of some interest to Romanian historians, it’s not exactly an obscure area, and yet there seems to be nothing on him. Just one example: the Encyclopedia of Bukovina, in three thick volumes with hundreds upon hundreds of entries, does not mention him. — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul,

thank you for your input. While I cannot comment on other regions / other Courts of Appeal in Romania, I respectfully challenge your assessment of the importance of Region / Court of Appeal when it comes to Bukovina / Cernăuți Court of Appeal, as this is my field of academic research. As explained by Mircea Duțu in 2018 (referenced in the article), in Bukovina, there were after 1918 three legal systems in place: The Austrian one, the Russian one and the Romanian one, depending on geographical area. The Cernăuți Court of Appeal therefore had the particular task of dealing with this on a daily basis until the legal system was unified with the remainder of Romania in 1938, as is also explained in many articles of that era. Its decisions and interpretations were widely discussed, and many Romanian legal scholars as well as state officials were particularly involved and in touch with the court. Reading the publications of the era, it is a fascinating field - the journal Pagini Juridice, for example, offers a myrad of sources.

It is clear that the Cernăuți Court of Appeal held a very important function in interwar Romania at least until 1938, a "link" between the legal system in Bukovina and the rest of Romania (to put it in very colloquial terms), and it was perceived that way in many publications of the era. There were direct meetings with the president of the court with the minister of justice to discuss topics related to Bukovina, and hundreds of press articles show the particular importance the court and its function held for the population of the region as the legal system of Bukovina was gradually incorporated in Romania's.

Re: Your argument that he appears to have fallen totally into oblivion for about 80 years, and your unfriendly assessment of me as aggressively self-promoting (I do not believe I have ever written "promotional" content, and I believe it is better etiquette to assume people act in good faith): In your assessment, you overlooked several academic publications mentioning Demeter R. v. Tuschinski / Dimitrie Tusinschi, like Albumul Mare al Societăților Academice „Arboroasa” și Junimea din Cernăuți, 2015, the first publication of a (due to the 1947-89 time) almost lost work, edited by Marian Olaru and others in Radauti. In their foreword, you can learn more about the difficulty in preserving that history, and how it was almost lost. Duțu also mentions Dimitrie Tusinschi (Demeter R. v. Tuschinski) in his 2018 article, and there are more. The importance Bukovina society put upon Demeter before WW2 is firmly established by many sources, he was not only known as a president of the court of appeal, but also for many charitative actions he participated in or initiated - sometimes, even articles and speeches he wrote and held were printed over multiple newspaper pages of major Bukovina pre-WW2 press, about legal and social issues, many articles were published about him, and so on, the Wikipedia article I wrote offers a small glimpse in its footnotes. Everything I quote in the article is a direct quote from those.

When I started work on my PhD in history about Demeter's biography recently, it was met with enthusiasm in relevant academic circles, and I received feedback that this research is important, bringing a notable and fascinating figure of interwar years back to attention. I am in contact with several academics who work on Bukovina, and I know that in the next years, more articles will be published addressing Demeter and Constantin, not only by me, but by several others. The more I research Bukovina history of the interwar years, the more I see important members of society whose existence was basically "forgotten" due to Socialist Romania's policies post-WW2, and who are still not well researched today. There is a number of unrelated, notable people I plan to write Wikipedia articles about with the same level of detail and research as about Constantin and Demeter, as this is my style of writing encyclopedic articles.

Notability cannot be established or not by mentions in research of the past 80 years - but, in this instance in particular, by the importance society put upon the person when he was active. Otherwise, people notable during their lifetime who are no longer much discussed would have to be deleted from Wikipedia - which would go against a lot of encyclopedic ideals. I stand by my assessment that notability is firmly established by all sources in the articles, and that rather the articles shall be judged by their contents than by their author (again, I do not think your assessment about me is particularly accurate or fair, and I object to the term "promotion").

I find it puzzling how this deletion proposal combines Demeter with his son Constantin, whose notability lies in his publications pre- and post-WW2, not in the office he held - two very different, independent articles are combined into a deletion discussion, their only connecting link is their relation to me, not their contents. As a recent example about Constantin (that is independent of his general notability for Wikipedia), his collected 1929-1942 works, which I republished this year, will receive additional coverage in Romanian and international academic publications in the next months, and the volume is presently added to several international academic libraries who deemed it notable for inclusion, four of which you can already find online on worldcat.

Biruitorul, it appears you are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about Romanian history, which I appreciate a lot. I always assume the best intentions, and I feel instead of trying to find reasons to delete two notable historical figures from Bukovina because you appear to have doubts/misunderstandings about my motifs (?), it might be more productive to collaborate in the future to add additional articles involving the era and region. I assure you I work out of idealism. Work on my ancestors' pages is not "promotional" at all; I spend a lot of time to complete gaps about Northern Bukovina history that were often overlooked and that I now unearth with my research. I would be delighted to send you several notable names and sources if you were interested to write new articles whom I have found during my research - there are many gaps in articles on Bukovina that could be filled, and maybe you would like to participate :) ATuschinski (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note once again WP:BLUDGEON. The purpose of this discussion is for non-conflicted users to express their opinions - not for a relative of the subject to relentlessly argue for the article to be kept. You are blatantly and consistently involved in self-promotionalism, even the post above is promotional. You just can't stop talking about yourself. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Demeter's post and his honours, most notably Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown of Romania, a very high honour, would suggest that he is indeed notable. "Minor local officials" do not generally receive such high honours or so many of them. Constantin's literary career would also seem to make him notable. I would argue that both meet WP:GNG in any case given the level of sourcing. I can see no good reasons for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the level of detail and length of the article? Axad12 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

300 living people could hold that award. It’s the type of medal that can be mentioned in the biography of someone already found to be notable, but doesn’t confer notability on its own. As for his position, one need only look up current presidents of Romanian tribunals to find they’re not really notable. Example: Alina Marcela Curelaru, who heads the tribunal in Piatra Neamț. Zero in-depth coverage, from what I can see. Finally, the sourcing is pretty weak, a mishmash of newspaper clippings and unverifiable archival material. The fact that no contemporary historian of Bukovina (who isn’t a family member) bothers to mention these characters speaks volumes. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
300 living people could hold that award. That's not actually very many! It doesn't confer notability. It acknowledges that the individual was notable enough to receive it! There's a big difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not confuse “notable within the bureaucratic and military structures of the Romanian state in the 1930s, in the narrow sense of being civil servants rewarded for long years of uncontroversial employment” with “notable by current Wikipedia standards”.

So I went back to the official gazette for the day when Demeter got his medal. You know who else got the very same medal on the very same day? Stavri Cunescu and Emil Cerchez, managers at the Health and Labor Ministry; and Ion Fianu, manager at the Agriculture Ministry. I.e., nobodies. I rest my case. — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to judge who is a "nobody"? It generally simply means "someone I've never heard of". So what? This is an encyclopaedia. It imparts imformation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I suggest we lower the temperature on this discussion a bit. Second, these people were “nobodies” in the sense that a) they never attained any significant state rank (minister, member of parliament, mayor, and so on). They were simply cogs in a machine, heads of ministerial departments, the sort of people this encyclopedia never notices; and b) no multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject exist regarding these individuals. None. This is what makes them nobodies for our purposes. Incidentally, this is largely true of the articles I’ve nominated for deletion: it’s quite conspicuous that no historian has ever bothered mentioning them. In decades upon decades of modern Romanian historiography (let’s say since 1965), they are completely absent from the record. Biruitorul ^Talk 12:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I don’t really see a convincing case for notability here. Moreover, the behavior of the articles’ creator during this discussion has been less than ideal. On the slight chance either subject may be notable, the articles should be restarted from scratch. The present versions simply are too compromised by original research. (Note to closing administrator: I originally nominated without a position, but only now decided on a stance.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this AfD, and was on the fence at first, however after a BEFORE search, it is clear to me now that the article should not be retained in the encyclopedia. The article is part of an effort to promote the Tuschinski family. No disrespect to the family is intended by this statement, however the encyclopedia is not the place for promoting one’s relatives or oneself. That is precisely what personal websites and social media are for. WP:PROMO and WP:COI apply in this case. This individual is not notable per Wikipedia criteria. He was simply doing his job well, which is run-of-the-mill for millions upon millions of individuals in the world. WP:MILL. The award is not significant enough to meet biographic benchmarks nor basic notability. The article seems to have original research and non-objective content which raises WP:OR and neutral point of view concerns. The bludgeoning of the discussion and long walls of text is not helping the situation, which has been twice suggested and I concur, that the article creator, who is a direct relative of the subject, and is also writing his PhD dissertation on this relative, permit the discussion to unfold naturally without bucking against opposing opinions -please let others speak. The article, while crafted/formatted nicely as a family memorial, fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ATuschinski does actually have a third COI in relation to this subject. As well as being a relation of the subject and doing his phd on the subject (as pointed out by Netherzone), the user has also very recently published a book on the subject. The following self-citation confirming this was recently removed from the Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski article: Further reading: Tuschinski, Constantin Ritter von / Tușinschi, Constantin D.: European Union, State Parties and Political Transformations. Collected Works 1929-1942. With an English language biography of the author by Alexander Tuschinski. Norderstedt 2024, ISBN. The following promotional self-citation was recently removed from the article for Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski: Tuschinski, Alexander: Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski - Biography, in: Tuschinski, Constantin Ritter von / Tușinschi, Constantin D.: European Union, State Parties and Political Transformations, Collected Works 1929-1942, Norderstedt 2024. Numerous sources and information are printed in the work, as well as memories of conversations with Constantin von Tuschinski. Setting up Wikipedia articles to coincide with the publication of a book you have published on the same subjects is a particularly flagrant breach of COI/PROMO guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, thanks for pointing that out. There might also be a financial interest in promoting the book in relation to this article and perhaps the article on the other relative.

I did notice the creator had used WP to promote themself and their own films, and that both his autobiography and the films were deleted on the German Wikipedia, if I am not mistaken. Netherzone (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One further point: his book was published by Books on Demand. In other words, it’s self-published, with no peer review. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.