Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Werner

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. Tone 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Werner

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

This person is completely non-notable. The only possible reason is that he was a minor politician, but there is zero discussion of his accomplishments (because he isn't notable). This page was created by a relative who keeps using her own webpage as a source. She is even claiming that a scanned obituary, from the guys own local paper and posted on her website, makes him "notable" - this is just ridiculous. He doesn't meet the criteria in WP:BIO (holding such a minor position is secondary, not primary), few of the other holders of that office have their own articles, the sources are either broken or from a family member/wikipedia edtor - if someone wants to write up their family tree then they should keep it on their own website. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Vice-Minister of Finance in Poland" looks notable to me, and describing it as a minor position looks deceptive William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Interviews in the New York Times - Los Angeles Times – Milwaukee Journal – Berkeley Daily Gazette – Southeast Missourian , provided here [1] should meet our requirements for inclusion. Does this help? JAAG^Talk 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "interview" in the New York Times is the same obit that was put up on Elonka's family website. I see she is calling in her friends though - I'm tempted to file an investigation over this meatpuppetry. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'meatpuppetry? - Do not understand. JAAG^Talk 02:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am beginning to wonder about the motivation behind the AfD. The original proposal is rather harsh (as in "this is just ridiculous") and now the nominator has made an uninformed accusation of puppetry toward someone who is trying to improve the article in good faith. What gives? Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first person to pop up and defend the article is a friend (on facebook) of the person who created the article (about her relative) - you can easily determine this by looking at his userpage and then clicking on his facebook link. See WP:DUCK.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed additional ref. to the article, that are linked to the actual news achieve sites that I used above, rather than a PDF file that was used earlier. Regarding knowing the family, sorry to say, I have not had the pleasure of meeting or even talking to any of the individuals. Hope this eliminates the concern . Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "concern" it is a verifiable fact - click on Connolley's username and then his facebook link - it'll show Elonka as oone of his friends. Have you ever heard of "seed funding?" Basically, for fundraisers, a few predetermined people give money so other people are more likely to give money - this "seed money" is able to generate a lot more money - I see a similar situation here due to this meatpupptery. So far the main source is an obit - nearly everyone will eventually get an obit, that is not a good source, and this guy has done nothing notable other than possibly being appointed to a minor government position in a minor nation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I have heard culture is different here and have heard of the term “…Six Degrees of Separation, but never thought the two would go hand-in-hand and that I would be involved. JAAG^Talk 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> 6 degrees? There is only one degree of seperation - why are you so defensive? You act like I'm accusing you of something, but so far I've only mentioned Connolley by name. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry if I mis-interperated your remarks. In that they were placed after my opinion, and not the other editor’s, I had thought that they included me. Sorry for any mis-understandings. JAAG^Talk 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Locust: You have insulted the nation and people of Poland in an odd drive to accuse William M. Connolley of puppetry. So what if he knows somebody? And I bet your legs are tired after that huge leap from an obituary link to a vast seed money conspiracy. Also, I have noticed that you and Connolley are both heavily involved in the talk pages of controversial topics in the climate change arena. If I were a fellow paranoid conspiracy theorist I would advise you to keep your dispute with that gentleman away from completely unrelated articles, like this one for Edward Werner. But I'm sure a person who wants to be an administrator would never act in such an unprofessional way. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet he has never before appeared to edit this topic - but oddly enough shows up, first thing I might add, to help defend the article created by his friend about her relative. Also, if you'd read my RfA I made it quite clear that I don't want to be an admin. If you were really a "paranoid conspiracy theorist" then you should be wondering why he decided to edit this article out of the blue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the same question be asked of you, TheGoodLocust? You don't normally edit in the Poland topic area, yet suddenly you decided to nom this article for deletion, and further, made the edit summaries personal towards me, even though (to my knowledge) we've never interacted before in any way. So, care to explain why this article showed up on your radar? --El on ka 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Sure, I'll tell you exactly why, or better yet, I'll drop the entire subject if you swear, to God if you believe in it, that you didn't contact Connolley to edit this article - I'll believe you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrap It Up - I am the guilty party here for calling out Locust's motivations and kicking off this pointless argument. My bad. And even though I started it, I recommend that nobody make any more responses to Locust's accusations. This page is supposed to be a debate about the notability of Edward Werner, a Polish politician who died in 1945 and who has nothing to do whatsoever with Locust's paranoia about the people who have edited the article in good faith. Every single other person here has said Keep so we have established that Edward Werner is worthy of his own WP article. The end. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a pretty strong opposal - you don't want Elonka to swear she didn't participate in meatpupptery? That seems odd to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to put this pointless discussion to bed: I do solemnly swear that I saw the AFD on this article from TGL's contribs list William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Close, but no, that would not do, you could look at my contributions at any time and say you saw the AfD there. I'd preferably like her word, but yours will suffice if properly worded (e.g. swearing she did not influence you to come to this article). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Beyond the items found by JAAG above, note that the Werner's possible notability was in the early 1900s which would explain the shortage of online sources that are not mere mirrors of this WP article. Knowledgeable people should work on adding references from books, etc. I agree also with Mr. Connolley above. I'm inclined to think that the article does not yet support the man's notability (especially #1 in WP:POLITICIAN) due to a lack of references. I have added the "refimprove" tag to the article, because that's what it really needs for now, rather than an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did some cleanup. The article looks much better now. -- Poeticbent talk 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:POLITICIAN and above discussion. --MWOAP (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, with clean up by Poeticbent. Grsz¹¹ 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Poland is a "completely non-notable" country. Other Polish goverment leaders of the same rank have entries on Wikipedia (check lists/links). So the question is should all such information be deleted? Who cares wbout Poland? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well referenced and obviously notable subject. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as anyone else who has achieved rank in a government - of whatever nation.... Peridon (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obit in the NYT, which is unquestioned evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That same page lists a bunch of obits - obits are not "unquestioned evidence of notability." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find one decision where it was rejected as evidence of notability? There might possibly be some question in the mid-19th century, but not in 1945!. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:POLITICIAN.--John (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (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.