Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Krafsur

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 18:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel_Krafsur

Page contains inaccuracies and is written in a pejorative manner. Does not meet criteria for a meaningful biography Ed6061 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• A candidate for Cleanup, not for VfD. Keep. Pilatus 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains inaccurate information, written in a pejorative tone, does not meet standard of significance for biography. Misinformation is potentially harmful to relatives. Ed6061 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This entry is inaccurate and does not apply a neutral point of view. It also does not meet the standard for biography as being a significant or famous individual.Lauralh8 13:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to cleanup. Laura and Ed, the fact that something is written you may claim something is written in a pejorative style does not automatically qualify it for deletion; it qualifies it to be re-written in a neutral style (unless it's an "attack page", an article which has the sole goal of denigrating its subject, which this patently isn't. See WP:NPOV, WP:DEL, lend a hand and {{sofixit}}. (And crying out for it to be deletied it isn't fixing it). Tonywalton  | Talk 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I hardly think that the tone of the article is POV but if someone has a problem with some of the wording they can try changing it. I think it is very interesting. All the information in the article is available in other sources. The two newbies claim there is factual error but make no attempt to justify their remarks. Dwain 14:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup esp. POV DV8 2XL 14:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You would feel very different if a member if your family had been persecuted during the Red Scare. You'd feel very different if your future could be threatened by these mis-statements. You'd feel very different if someone anonymously slandered your family. Removing the innaccuracies and tone results in a page that clearly does not meet the standard set forth in Wikipedia:Biography This should be removed. By the way, I can't help being a newbie. Sight sources you ask? I knew the man! Elliot Krafsur who wrote a refutation in the talk session is S.S. Krafsur's son! Primary sources beat the secondary sources every time Ed6061 14:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually no they don't, in the context of WP. Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and perhaps more importantly the section at WP:V#Verifiability, not truth Tonywalton  | Talk 17:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly don't blame family members for things done by someone else (someone who's now dead, in fact). So Ellitot Krafsur bears no responsibility for Samuel Krafsur's actions, morally (and certainly not legally). However, trying to white-wash history is a separate and distinct act, one which may merit condemnation. Noel (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak delete ignoring the factual and POV issues... Is this guy notable? Or was he just one name in a notable organization?Roodog2k 14:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He worked for a few years as a journalist for TASS, the Russian news agency. Hardly surprising that the KGB was interested in him. This does not make him a spy as the author anonymously claims. Ed6061 14:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Krafsur was never convicted nor charged with espionage. The biographer is clearly on a mission. Here he applies highly severe judgment based on a few interpretatively disputatious intercepts. He ignores the legitimacy of being a TASS employee in wartime when the USSR was an ally. He persists in anonymity. His subject has been dead for twenty two years. The biography will cause further harm to the Krafsur name simply by association, as has indeed happened.Ekrafsur 15:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment User:Ed6061 seems under the mistaken impression that the article was anonymously-authored. I've pointed him in the direction of the edit history on the article's talk page. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the term of art would be "pseudonymously authored." Sdedeo 18:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and add full citations. nobs 17:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Weird, we're seeing more of these kinds of complaints on wikipedia these days. But there are bound to be NPOV issues with this: should a guy whose sourced contact with the Soviet Union lasts just as long as we were allies be termed a "Soviet Agent"? Sdedeo 18:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have tried to do a little NPOVing of the article, but it needs more work. Sdedeo 19:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The NSA Archives refer to Samuel Krafsur as "KGB Agent Samuel Krafsur", [1]. nobs 20:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Have updated the article. I feel very uncomfortable about the whole thing, though. Sdedeo 20:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. A URL refers to Samuel Krafsur as "KGB Agent" but the referenced document only suggests that he might be a source for other contacts. Furthermore the only issue at dispute is whether Krafsur was a "spy". The idea of his being an actual "KGB Agent" is totally farfetched. It seems likely that the URL heading is in fact a mistake, unless of course someone can point to a specific document that show otherwise. Jdivine 06:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The URL you refer to starts with "http://www.nsa.gov/venona/" in other words, the web page at that URL (i.e. not the image of the old message, but the HTML file listing all those images) is a US Government document, one associated with the NSA archives, which does indeed refer to "KGB Agent Samuel Krafsur". It might be incorrect, but it is a fact that a formal US government document refers to him that way, and it's entirely appropriate to include that fact in an article about him. Noel (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not agree that an HTML index page, in all probability assembled by an intern, would be categorized as a "formal US government document". Based on your user bio I'd concede that you are the better judge for what standard is appropriate for Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean I buy your argument. Jdivine 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, it certainly is a US government document, even if you're going to quibble about the word "formal". It's certainly not the work of a private individual. Noel (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note: the article was also listed here Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions#Requested_pages. nobs 21:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and CleanUpNeeds some cleaning and it looks notable and SOCKPUPPETS keep Voting Delete Which is Rare as they normally vote for keep a page not delete. I CANT stand SockPuppets--Aranda56 01:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and verifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article as written is indeed pejorative. For crying out loud, under Extenal Links we have "Spying on America." The Venona documents listed do discuss IDE but make no indication that the information gathered from him was covertly obtained. Indeed, as a journalist he would likely run across interesting tidbits of information from time to time. And as an employee of the TASS news agency Krafsur would have undoubtedly spoken from time to time with various Soviet government functionaries, some of whom were likely covert KGB. This does not make him a "spy." And frankly, if you caveat and footnote this article enough to make it "fair," it becomes clear that Krafsur is not a figure with enough historical importance to warrant his own biography. Also I note in the talk page for this topic and in their biographies that Nobs and Dwain appear to be on a bizarre quest to rehabilitate the image of Joe McCarthy. This would tend to lend a slant to their "POV" on topics such as these. Jdivine 07:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If he was just "a journalist", why does an intelligence officer of the NKGB say (in the message of 17 May 1944) "we propose to use him", when he was already a TASS employee at that point? (And the term "spy" is imprecise, and one not used by those knowledgeable in this field.) Noel (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • All terms are imprecise. I'm not knowledgable in the field, but perhaps you are. Could you suggest a better term and replace the phrase "Spying on America" with something more appropriate? Jdivine 04:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The page referenced reads "... we propose to use an employee of the Editorial Office ... for cultivating newspapermen's circles ..." This "cultivation" seems something a mere journalist or an employee of the TASS news agency would not normally be "used" for. The statement is somewhat ambigous, but seems to be a suggestion that names of potential "sources" might be gleaned from this man. Jdivine 04:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Decrypt # 1433, 1435, first sentence reads "SERGEJ has brought in IDE but is not able to direct his work systemactically". What does "brough in" mean? It is a reference to "signing on KONTRAKTATsIYa" (contracts) as in # 705. There is plenty more from this batch of decrypts which can be shown conclusivley that Krafsur did more that talent spot & recruit, he was a purveyor of high level information without whom "we are completely powerless" [2]. nobs 04:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keepKeep. He's a pretty minor figure, and his work for Soviet intelligence appears to have been of fairly minor import, so I'm not sure he really rises to the level of notability required. Still, we seem to have articles on less notable people (all sorts of minor sports figures, etc), so it's not clear to me we should get rid of this page. Noel (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Now that Nobs has reminded me of the connection with I. F. Stone, that ups Krafsur into someone on whom we need to have an article. Noel (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Google results for Simon Samuel Krafsur come up blank; one unrelated hit for Simon Krafsur; 44 hits for Samuel Krafsur, but almost all of them appear to be Wikipedia and Wikipeda-derived results. While Google hits are not a perfect indicator of notability, Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place a story appears on the web; that would seem to be the case here. If he really is notable, he'll eventually be mentioned elsewhere and can be listed here then. Aquillion 23:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

He is listed in many books. The internet is not a substitute for books and archives there are many people who are or were important that are not well sourced on the internet. Dwain 02:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC) Yahoo has even more hits than Google.

While I agree that visibility to Google can vary from subject to subject and should not be used in borderline cases, a subject with no google hits at all (or, as in this case, only hits from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors) is simply not notable. The extra Yahoo hits you referred to, note, seem to be because Yahoo is poorer at recognizing Wikipedia mirrors; flipping quickly through them, it seems that everything there is just the same few Wikipedia pages repeated over and over from different mirrors. That is a bad thing; when the Google search results on a subject turn up nothing but Wikipedia entries, it's a safe bet that someone is trying to use Wikipedia to push a non-notable subject into notability. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Aquillion 00:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Krafsur is a direct pipleine into the White House; see discussion at Talk:Samuel_Krafsur#1433.2C_1435, and other notable comments regarding his value to KGB on that Talk page. nobs 02:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt the value of your research into the Venona decrypts; but I'm still not comfortable with the idea of using Wikipedia for information that has not yet become generally accepted. I think it would be better if you published your conclusions with regard to his importance elsewhere first, outside of an encyclopedia; if he's as important as you concluded in those links, it will not take long for your conclusions to become widely-known enough to use as the basis for a Wikipedia article on him. Aquillion 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

But it's not the research of people here who brought him to public attention; his name originally came up in books by specialists in this area. (E.g. he's in the ComIntern archives book too, as well as the Venona books by West and Klehr/whatshisname). The work by people here is more in the nature of verifying the statements in those books. Noel (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. --TJive 04:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT Users: Ed6061, Lauralh8, Ekrafsur, and Jdivine could all be the same person. All their edits it appears have to do with Samuel Krafsur. They all suggest that the article is biased against him and they all give the same message. They give off the appearance of sockpuppets and ostensibly are even if they are a couple of people from the same family. Dwain 18:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT by E.S.Krafsur 9/8/05: To address 'Dwain's' suggestion that those who have voted 'delete' are the same person, I can testify that they are not because one is my son, Edwin (ed6061); he and I have signed off with our given names or initials. We don't write anonymously.
• Keep. TDC 01:28, September 8, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.