Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miklos Kanitz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 due to no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Miklos Kanitz
non notable individual; a Holocaust survivor, but there were thousands of those. The award he was given goes to multiple people and organizations each year, in a province with less than a million people in it. Brianyoumans 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom ::mikmt 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - good biographical information about a Holocaust survivor whose family played an important role in postwar Hungary, including an account of how he survived and his activities in describing his experiences. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
KeepI feel that any Holocaust survivor is automatically notable thereby. But I spend a lot of time fighting Holocaust denial and may be biased.--Anthony.bradbury 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Having read other comments, I change my !vote to Neutral--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing that makes this person notable. There are five Holocaust survivors that go to my synagogue, do they all deserve a Wikipedia article? Certainly not. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A well referenced article if a little bit heated with visceral descriptions. It appears he has been referenced in multiple reputable sources, if he was notable enough for the award and for the articles about him he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Also if the survivors that attend the above users synagogue have multiple third party articles written about them then by all means they should have wiki pages. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Assuming this person is truely notable, shouldn't there be more information about why he is notable in the article rather than a single sentence at the end of an inspiring, yet common story? A Wikipedia article needs to assert the notability of its subject. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- We could put a reference to the award in the first paragraph, I don' think the format of the article is particularly important during a AFD. It seems to me we have notable survive (not famous) of a notable event. Daniel J. Leivick 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable. Only 735 Google hits! Bigtop 01:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Well documented. Remember notability is not subjective, if others have written about him, he is notable. If all 1,000 had well documented lives, that were mentioned in other sources, they deserve to be here too. Or, all 1,000 could appear in a single list, with the little bit known about them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. There isn't a real assertion of notability other than being a Holocaust survivor, but nothing makes him stand out from other survivors. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- DELETE. Surprisingly, Kanitz's father is more notable and far more deserving of an article. However, this Kanitz is just a mediocrity: the negative (not unique) side of being 1 in 6,000,000. —ExplorerCDT 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I can understand (though not agree with) the argument of insufficient notability, but "mediocrity" seems oddly harsh and out-of-place in this context; I wish you'd used a different word. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: I think "mediocrity" would be the most appropriate word. And even though it sounds unsympathetic for me to say: in a world of famous Holocaust survivors, this guy's second-tier at best, with no real accomplishments post-Holocaust. He's not an Elie Wiesel, Władysław Szpilman, or Władysław Ślebodziński who have done more than have an ironic survivor story and be the son of a slightly famous father whose contributions are discussed in his son's article more than the son's notability. I don't see any notable reason why to keep him just because he suffered and that he now, after fifty years of internalizing, is talking about it. At that level, we'd have everyone who ever did time in prison and then became a "motivational speaker" with an article on Wikipedia. Suffering is not and should not be part of the inclusivity criteria. —ExplorerCDT 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I can understand (though not agree with) the argument of insufficient notability, but "mediocrity" seems oddly harsh and out-of-place in this context; I wish you'd used a different word. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Debated over this for some time. He has a great story and is notable...but overall doesnt seem notable in the same way as Wikipedia demands. Sorry, I do like this article.Ganfon 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: ... and this !vote I found,somehow, slightly sad. We are writing an encyclopedia, but after all, within the vague and general bounds of appropriate coverage, why would we not keep a "great [factual] story" about a "notable" person where one "like[s] the article" when one is "sorry" and (per edit summary) "regretful" about losing it? Notability and our guidelines about it are important, but their purpose is to improve the encyclopedia. Are we really a better encyclopedia without this article than with it? Newyorkbrad 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree 100%. If a factual article improves the encyclopedia then there is no reason to exclude. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. The danger is simple: precedent. There are hundreds of millions of elderly people in the world, many of whom have interesting life stories, and many of whom have relatives who would be glad to put up a well-written article about their uncle who served in the war, their grandmother the college professor, etc. How many of these are truly notable? And who would verify them all? And maintain them? We are an encylopedia, not a memorial. --Brianyoumans 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep There are some legitimate questions of notability, but there are a few other sources that have written about him. He's a more-documented-example-than-most of a very notable group of people (Holocaust survivors, that is), and I think it's beneficial to have a specific example like this. I don't agree with User:Anthony.bradbury that all survivors are notable, or User:Daniel J. Leivick that all factual biographical articles should be kept, but Kanitz's experiences are rare enough that I don't think that it sets too much of a dangerous precedent. At best, it's a strong keep like some people have suggested. At worst, it's a good time to ignore all rules and keep it in spite of some questions. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is a notable example if not a very notable individual. We are on thin ice and lose valuable information if we block all examples. They have a place. But that is not to say we include all similar individuals. For instance one might usefully include an example of a specific witch-burning,Anjouli 08:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC) but listing them all would be wrong.
- Strong Keep - Meets WP:BIO as this person person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person as per the article's reference section. If you look at the first reference citation, "Anne Frank Exhibit Magazine" Holocaust Survivor Opens Saskatoon Exhibit, his story and picture are fully recounted on page 24 of the PDF (as displayed on my laptop doing a search for his name {page 13 of the article story}) and from the article appears to have spoken internationally on his experience. The third reference cites an award he received that is mentioned in a Canadian paper. He seems to be a notable speaker on the Holocaust both in print and in speeches he gives. Ronbo76 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - verifiable, encyclopaedic, passes WP:BIO - why are we even discussing this? WilyD 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- That you assert he passes WP:BIO and is encyclopedic does not make it so - why do you believe this to be true?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- He specifically meets the The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person criterion of WP:BIO. WilyD 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of the three references given, he is possibly the primary subject of the newspaper article (it isn't online, I haven't read it, so I assume it is about him). The Anne Franke Exhibition book has a page on him, out of a 24 page booklet on the exhibition (and I think it is obvious he did NOT open the exhibition in other locations; the exhibition is customized for each location, and probably in each location they find an appropriate opening speaker). The other article mentions him briefly in a list of award recipients. So, so far he is at most the primary subject of one source. --Brianyoumans 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- He specifically meets the The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person criterion of WP:BIO. WilyD 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that he is, on the balance, not notable.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unforetunately, you are wrong. Notability is not subjective and He is notable. This is indisputable. WilyD 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree that this is indisputable (and not just because over a dozen people above dispute it.) He was the subject of one profile in a local newspaper, from which the vast majority of this article is constructed. He was also the subject of a short profile as part of a press packet distributed upon the opening of a museum; I am not sure this is a notable source, and in any case that profile itself might be culled from the original article in question. The third source merely confirms that he won a probably non-notable community award. I maintain, then, that his notability is arguable, and that is in fact what this AfD is for.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not subjective. Remember that the article may have been in worse shape than it is now when some editors argued for deletion. Or editors may have wrongly concluded that he's non-notable due to insufficient evaluation of the article. He meets the established guidelines and policies for notability - i.e. He is notable. If you disagree, the correct action is to review the relevent guidelines and policies - because he is notable, and this is an established fact of this debate. The The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person criterion of WP:BIO is met - I cannot understand why we're even having this debate - the correct decision is obvious and guided by policy without the need for much work at all - if we all work to discover the truth earnestly and diligently, the outcome is as clear as this AfD WilyD 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I just specifically provided my reasoning for why I don't think he meets the criteria. You have just repeated your argument that he is notable and linked for the fifth time to the same policy page. Also, unfortunately, the use of terms like "non-trivial" and "primary subject" mean that there will always be people who dispute whether a given article meets the standard, so despite the policy's insistence that notability is not subjective, in several ways it still is. Appealing to the policy multiple times does not automaically make this guy's notability an "established fact." Also, if notability's non-subjective nature were as cut and dry as you argue, there would be a LOT less activity on the AFD boards.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- People ignore policy and concensus to argue from the gut all the time. I'm not too concerned. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and any halfway competent Admin will see that the arguments for delete are inconsistant with the facts. Your arguement even admits he meets WP:BIo in the premise, but then tries to explain it away with arugments that go against the policies (like "notability of sources", which is bunk). It's not a big deal. WilyD 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- My arguments above are not "from the gut", and you should also realize that a LOT of discussion goes on about how notable a given source (for example, a press packet) is. I also do not appreciate claim anyone who is halfway competent must agree with you. But on the whole I think we are on the same page that, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a big deal.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Incidently, I believe the article has not been altered materially since I AFDed it. The reference to the Anne Franke Exhibition was added, that's about it. --Brianyoumans 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- My arguments above are not "from the gut", and you should also realize that a LOT of discussion goes on about how notable a given source (for example, a press packet) is. I also do not appreciate claim anyone who is halfway competent must agree with you. But on the whole I think we are on the same page that, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a big deal.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- People ignore policy and concensus to argue from the gut all the time. I'm not too concerned. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and any halfway competent Admin will see that the arguments for delete are inconsistant with the facts. Your arguement even admits he meets WP:BIo in the premise, but then tries to explain it away with arugments that go against the policies (like "notability of sources", which is bunk). It's not a big deal. WilyD 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I just specifically provided my reasoning for why I don't think he meets the criteria. You have just repeated your argument that he is notable and linked for the fifth time to the same policy page. Also, unfortunately, the use of terms like "non-trivial" and "primary subject" mean that there will always be people who dispute whether a given article meets the standard, so despite the policy's insistence that notability is not subjective, in several ways it still is. Appealing to the policy multiple times does not automaically make this guy's notability an "established fact." Also, if notability's non-subjective nature were as cut and dry as you argue, there would be a LOT less activity on the AFD boards.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not subjective. Remember that the article may have been in worse shape than it is now when some editors argued for deletion. Or editors may have wrongly concluded that he's non-notable due to insufficient evaluation of the article. He meets the established guidelines and policies for notability - i.e. He is notable. If you disagree, the correct action is to review the relevent guidelines and policies - because he is notable, and this is an established fact of this debate. The The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person criterion of WP:BIO is met - I cannot understand why we're even having this debate - the correct decision is obvious and guided by policy without the need for much work at all - if we all work to discover the truth earnestly and diligently, the outcome is as clear as this AfD WilyD 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree that this is indisputable (and not just because over a dozen people above dispute it.) He was the subject of one profile in a local newspaper, from which the vast majority of this article is constructed. He was also the subject of a short profile as part of a press packet distributed upon the opening of a museum; I am not sure this is a notable source, and in any case that profile itself might be culled from the original article in question. The third source merely confirms that he won a probably non-notable community award. I maintain, then, that his notability is arguable, and that is in fact what this AfD is for.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unforetunately, you are wrong. Notability is not subjective and He is notable. This is indisputable. WilyD 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I would have kept him if he has written a famous book about the Holacoust or something like that. --Ineffable3000 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Agree with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) above - _if_ 1000 more survivors shows up with likewise well referenced stories, maybe we should convert them to a rich list (separate expansion of List of Holocaust survivors?) but keep for now. highlunder 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, at least I have provoked a bit of a discussion! I would put this article in the same class with one I afd'ed a while ago, on Leutnant Helmut Frohberg, a German WWII officer - someone who lived through an interesting and notable time or event in history, but who did not play a notable part and has not written or spoken such to shape our ideas about that time. He was just there. And remember that keeping non-notable Holocaust survivors leads to also keeping articles on non-notable D-Day soldiers, Iwo Jima soldiers, civil rights movement footsoldiers, anti-apartheid activists... People do bring these things up in AFD discussions - "Why can't we keep this article? This other person is just as non-notable, and they have an article!" Brianyoumans 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The discussion above, though, does highlight that any person who comes up on AfD must be discussed on s/his merits. Perhaps "he was there" is not a reason to keep, but "he was there and has since been written about substantially in multiple non-trivial independant sources" probably is.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:BIO with verifiabl reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Easily meets WP:BIO. Many of the delete votes make me sad. :-( S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- keepLike the previous editor who commented, I am unable to fathom the reasoning of the people who would think this either undocumented or not notable. DGG 02:27, 13 January 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
