Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Hirschboeck

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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Hirschboeck[edit]

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

I'm sure he did some great work, but one write up from the local paper isn't enough to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a second substantial article about his work, also in the Milwaukee Sentinel, July 23, 1966 (5 years after the first one),[1] and a similar piece appeared in the St. Petersburg Times[2]. There's a few GBooks snippet hits that also look like they'd back up the content of those articles. On the other hand, I haven't found any independent verification for the assertion in the first article that the church he was credited with building in Kyoto is a landmark. It's possible that some of this content might be relevant to a broader article such as History of Roman Catholicism in Japan or Roman Catholic Diocese of Kyoto.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see if there was better sourcing. Two local papers may not be enough, particularly since he isn't the subject of the article just mentioned in them. His name is pretty easy to search, being somewhat unique (although I did find hits on FB for someone of the same name). Part of the issue is that I didn't really a really strong claim of notability, sources or not. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It is very difficult to judge notabiliry from such a short article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you take the time and try to research the individual, per WP:BEFORE. If you can't find anything in gbooks, scholar, web, news, then a person can claim so in good faith. Notability is never about the article's contents, it is about the subject matter as a whole, and we assume someone tries to research before making a decision here. If there were good sources to be found, I would have added them or just tagged for refs. The material may be merge worthy (per above discussion) but I haven't seen definitive evidence it passes WP:GNG for a stand alone article. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but the three papers (Milwaukee Sentinel, Milwaukee Journal, St. Petersburg Times) that have covered Hirschboeck seem to be quite large ones with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands and with several Pulitzer Prizes (in the cases of Milwaukee Journal and St. Petersburg Times). That in combination with Hirschboeck being refereed to as a "significant observer" [3] along with some additional coverage not mentioned above [4][5][6] pushes me over the keep fence. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2012 (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.