Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gerhard Vogel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per (presumed) BLP1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gerhard Vogel

[edit]
Paul Gerhard Vogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original PROD by User talk:Kudpung on 28 August 2010 for: Tagged for sourcing issues since Jan 2009, this biography of a possibly living person has no references at all within the definition of WP:RS and WP:V.
PROD was removed by creator without editing the article or providing sufficient rationale in ES or on TP.
PRODed again on 5 October by User Talk:Alpha Quadrant (disallowed repost of PROD and removed) for: The article appears to be about a non-notable person. The sources provided are unreliable.
Kudpung (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lack, or unreliability, of references is not in itself a reason for deletion. Non-notability would be such a reason, and failure to find references would support that claim if it were made. However we have no claim of non-notability, and no claim that references cannot be found. In fact, references can be found in a few minutes with Google Books and Google Scholar. I have added a couple, and a notability claim. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator stated PROD was removed by creator without editing the article or providing sufficient rationale in ES or on TP. WP:CONTESTED encourages but does not require editing or explanation: in this the PROD was removed with the edit summary Asked for help at Wikiproject: LGBT studies which seems a perfectly sensible explanation. It does not seem to constitute any case for deletion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been passed to AfD because two editors, independent of each other, have considered the article to be of sufficient concern that may require consideration for deletion. Normal procedure. The PROD produced neither explanation for being contested, nor any improvement or changes to the article. AfD is hence the recommended process and avoids possible indiscriminate deletion. --Kudpung (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been passed to AfD because two editors, independent of each other, have considered the article to be of sufficient concern that may require consideration for deletion.--Kudpung (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see what the problem with the nomination is: article is not notable. There is not substantial coverage in independent sources, fails GNG. Spent a few min on Google Books & Scholar: the few references of Vogel appear to be mentions. I'll check back to see if the sourcing situation is cleared up. Lionel (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With due deference to WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is quite clear that the policy at WP:RSUE has not been observed. Failing which, the sources cannot be taken into consideration. However, as a native French and German speaker, I would be happy to be of service for those languages if it means helping the 'keepers' to comply. Any other languages may be usable through a much cleaned up Google translation.--Kudpung (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Kudpung could explain in what respect "the policy at WP:RSUE has not been followed"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:RSUE is about quoting from non-English-language sources, and since the two books cited are not quoted from, it is clear that policy has not been violated by their use. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RSUE has been violated. References #4 & #5 are translations of quotes from the film which is in Dutch/German. The original German/Dutch text is missing. These sources should be removed. Lionel (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSUE says nothing of the sort. It only says that the original text should be provided when we quote directly from a non-English source, not when the source itself is a translation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The film was subtitled in English and those may be quoted. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Yoenit, 'section' is a bit optimistic. Die Verfolgung der Homosexuellen in der NS-Zeit; has very short snippets, one on pp 57 and one 58 mentioning the subject's name, but the full text of the pages is not available and there is no proof that it is a contiguous text. Same for Le ragioni di un silenzio: has very short snippets on pp 57 and 58 mentioning the subject's name,, but the full text of the pages is not available either. However, Die Andere Welt has a very brief mention on p.15, but the paragraph is truncated. However, not provided as a ref in the article, but Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (2010) Lambert M. Surhone‬, ‪Miriam T. Timpledon‬, ‪Susan F. Marseken‬ (editors) Betascript Publishers, 2010‬, ISB 6130338007, 9786130338008‬, promisses to have something on him, but I cannot find what. --Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Betascript Publishing is a publisher of Wikipedia articles, such as the above Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so it cannot be considered a WP:RS -- obvious WP:CIRCULAR. patsw (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)already thin and few[reply]
Well, as nominator, even I have tried tried to find stuff, but we seem to be accumulating more reasons why the sources are inadequate.--Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please say which sources you find inadequate and why? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the master's thesis. Lionel (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. In what respects is this inadequate? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all respects. They aren't reliable. Finished Ph.D. dissertations are another matter.Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship.
The policy cites that finished Ph.D. dissertations are acceptable and unfinished dissertations are not. This appears to be a finished Masters dissertation. There is no consensus that these are inherently unreliable. Is there specific reason to believe that this one is particularly unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Vestal doesn't appear to be an authority on history. 2. Vogel gets 1 paragraph, albeit a long one. 3. Not clear on editorial review of the thesis. Note: Vogel's paragraph is referenced to the documentary. Even here no indication of anything more than a videotaped interview of Vogel. Lionel (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was selected for interview as one of the few survivors of this sort of persecution (BTW, why do you suggest that it was not independent?). That is evidence of notability. You seem to be confusing this film as evidence of notability and a reliable source for his life. There are three issues here. The film is a primary source for the events of his life -- is is a secondary, and presumably reliable, reliable source for his claims of what those events were -- it is good evidence of notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course the documentary is independent of Vogel. For the documentary and Vogel to be dependent there would be to be a close relationship between the two such as Vogel funding it, directing it, selecting the victims to be interviewed, Vogel having a financial interest in the production, etc.
Vogel is a primary source. The documentary is a secondary source using primary sources. The processing of compilation, editing, production, etc. makes its content a secondary source. patsw (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The doc would be a secondary source if it provided critical analyses of Vogel. To solely use quotations from Vogel's interview makes this usage that of a primary source. Primary sources do not count toward notability.Wikipedia:Evaluating_sources#Examples Lionel (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article does not "solely use quotations from Vogel's interview", this point, valid or not, appears irrelevant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same article? References #4 and #5 are the film sources. Ref #4 is the "bent over" quote. Ref #5 is the "kapo" quote. No other content is sourced to the film. The film is used solely to provide 2 quotes from an interview. That is a primary source and again does not count toward notability. Lionel (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course we are, no need to be sarcastic. The film is used in the article to source the quotes. The fact that Vogel was one of three people selected to be interviewed supports notability. Vogel's words are primary. The film is clearly a secondary source for Vogel's claims: it is a reliable account of what he said. The film is thus an independent secondary source in which Vogel has received significant coverage. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can at least agree that the actual footage of Vogel speaking and being interviewed is a primary source. If the film specifically presented biographical and/or critical information on Vogel, either by way of narration, montage, etc., independent of Vogel himself, then that would be a secondary source. Now: there is nothing to support that the coverage of Vogel in the film, neither in the article footnote, nor even IMDB, is anything more than him being interviewed. If there is, add a quote to the footnote and we'll move on. Until then, without substantiation, the source does not count toward notability because it is a primary source. Lionel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a primary source if he had made the film. The film is clearly a secondary source, as a newspaper interview would be. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally we're getting somewhere. Newspaper interviews also do not count toward notability.Lionel (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly how does it fail WP:N? - references are in the article, are you saying that the references fail WP:RS or those references are not independent of Vogel or something else? The Nazi Holocaust is not a 1E. patsw (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I can speak for Canadian, Vogel's "claim to fame" is his time at Emsland. He is not known for any other single topic, thus BLP1E. I.e., we don't create an article for someone just on the basis of their being held in a nazi concentration camp. Lionel (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is known for having been selected to have his experiences recorded. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where do we stand on the sources?

  1. Vestal - masters thesis - not RS
  2. Bennetto - looks like a good source
  3. Teaching... - this is a resource book, it lists the film as a resource, certainly doesn't count toward notability
  4. Pink Tri - it's is a primary source - doesn't count toward notability
  5. Pink Tri - it's is a primary source - doesn't count toward notability Lionel (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and what about Hoffschildt? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading... "not used to verify article content" WP:FURTHER Lionel (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but still valid for establishing notability, which is an attribute of the article subject, not the current content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and when I added those two books, I did so as References, precisely because they do verify the article content. I don't know why they were relabelled Further Reading. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what about the two books? And who says Vestal's thesis is unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to lack many reliable sources, thus breaching WP:V, WP:BLP. I feel, unless anyone is willing to completely re-write this article, with reliable sources to all the information they include, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Thank you. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 11:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an article can be improved, this is not so much an argument for deletion as for improvement. Do you feel that no acceptable article on this person could possibly be written? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but not for this encyclopedia. It should have become clear by now that this is not a debate about the notability of the unfortunate Paul Gerhard, but one of sourcing, and upholding our policies and principles for inclusion. The fact that we have been discussing it so long already is reason enough to cast doubt on the reliability and 'significant' coverage provided by those sources. In this case, it's about a living person, so if there turns out be no consensus, it should default to 'delete'. --Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Hoffschildt book has at least three pages of coverage and the Circolo Pink book has the subject's name as a section heading. This, along with shorter coverage in the other sources cited, is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Or alternatively, if consensus says that the guy isn't notable by himself, merge to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. It's true that not all of the sources given are reliable, but enough are that it shouldn't be impossible to write a valid article. Rewriting would be a great improvement, but that isn't really a reason for deletion. There does seem to have been a reasonable level of coverage in genuinely reliable sources within the context of the broader topic. This is on the edge of WP:BIO, but I think it falls marginally the right side. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I sadly consider this non-noteable. He is simply one more ordinary person caught up in the horror of the Nazis. Had he developed something like Viktor Frankl while imprisoned, that might be different. The issue around BLP is interesting in that no one seems to know if he is indeed living. I think Canadian Paul brings this out, too. Alzarian16's suggestion to merge into a broader article is appealing but fails WP:NOTDIR --CompRhetoric (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the six points of WP:NOTDIR would that fail? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 13 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Gerhard_Vogel&oldid=1138211750"