Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Einstein

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eduard Einstein

• Delete: He is not notable except for being Einstein's son and everything useful in this article is already in the articles for Albert Einstein and Mileva Marić. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The article does not yet have a full biography of Eduard Einstein. If the article is deleted, how is it to ever grow to become a definitive article? I have seen many excellent Wikipedia articles begin as stubs and grow into comprehensive and informative works in small increments. Short length and minimal content is reason for someone to make an effort to expand the article, not to delete it. Unless there is a substantive problem raised such as copyright issues, nonsense entry or some such, the request for deletion should be withdrawn. 71.16.30.178 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't say to delete because it's short, I said to delete because he's not noteworthy. He's just a guy who had schizophrenia that happened to be Einstein's son. Being the relative of someone noteworthy isn't noteworthy itself. We don't have articles for Einstein's siblings or John Adams' father, etc., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Comment: You say he is not noteworthy; that is your point of view. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral point of view. His parentage, medical conditions, etc. are documented fact, of interest to many (but not, apparently, to everyone). Just because the article doesn't interest *you* is not grounds for deletion. 71.16.30.178 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Again, not the right policy. I'm going by WP:BIO which this person does not meet in my opinion. Did his condition somehow raise awareness of schizophrenia at the time? Was it even newsworthy when he died? He doesn't even qualify as much as, say, Rosemary Kennedy whose condition was considered controversial and who was a visible public figure. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: According to WP:BIO, notability includes simply having name recognition. Wikipedia has a huge article on Paris Hilton, for example. 71.16.30.178 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment but Paris Hilton is notable, shes not just a daughter of a hotel mogul, but a model, actress (if you can call her one) etc. Mike 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability or significance included in the article. Sliggy 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Again - an argument to expand the article, not to delete it. If you want evidence that Eduard Einstein is a noteworthy historical figure, you don't have to look far. Here are 2 examples - Google for 5 minutes and I'm sure you will find more. [1] [2] 71.16.30.178 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's not down to me to find significant achievements; however, in this case I have been unable to come up with anything over and above "he was born, a son, to his father" which, as I am sure you understand, is not that unusual.... Sliggy 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Acheivements are not the only source of fame or notability. Even Nicky Hilton has her own Wikipedia article, for nothing more than being the sister of someone who is famous just for being famous. Even Paris Hilton's Dog has its own Wikipedia entry! Now, tell me, what are the dog's notable acheivements? 71.16.30.178 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I would certainly vote to delete that if it came up on Afd. By the way, nice edit to the Eduard Einstein article --- now half the article reads like a desperate attempt to not get it deleted. And it's not EE raising public awareness, it's www.schizophrenia.com raising public awareness... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion is not about the Hilton sisters or the dog; they are irrelevant. The discussion is about Eduard Einstein. Please state his notability/significance. Thanks. Sliggy 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Your wish is my command. It is relevant - we are arguing degree of notability. As noted elsewhere in this page, Eduard Einstein is notable enough to merit coverage on several web pages, and to be the subject of a book. I submit that if this makes him more notable than a subject that is currently accepted on Wikipedia, the article should stand. Since his life, medical condition and actions no doubt had a significant impact on one of the greatest scientists of all time, I think he is notable, certainly more so than some socialite's dog. dryguy 17:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Hmmm, I bet if you asked people under 30, more would have heard of the dumb dog than of Eduard Einstein. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Sliggy. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It's too late to try to keep this brief but Anon, you're making my case for me. The schizophrenia.com website says "Albert Einstein's son - Eduard Einstein" and the other one is a site devoted to Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein is famous, his son isn't. Other examples in the former web site are Dr. James Watson's son - who apparently didn't even have a name and has no mention on Wikipedia, let alone his own article - and Alan Alda's Mother who has a one-line article that I'll be Afd'ing next. Mrs. Alda was at least a beauty pageant winner and a model. You're saying that the Einstein article can be fleshed out - but it can't. There's nothing left to say. Because he wasn't noteworthy. He has a few lines in articles for Albert Einstein and Eduard's mother and that's all that's necessary. Oh, and Paris Hilton is a kazillionaire and an actress. That's noteworthiness. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete per nom. Mike 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The burden of proof rests with the article creator and editors to demonstrate notability. There's no move to lock this page. It could be recreated if evidence surfaces that this man was notable for being anything other than the son of someone famous. There are plenty of precedents for deleting this kind of article. Durova 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep else Merge to Albert Einstein. schizophrenia.com lists him as one of the 20 most famous schizophrenic people. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 21:15Z

Comment: See my comment above. #20 on that list isn't interesting when #19 is Dr. James Watson's nameless son (whoever that is). I'd be happy to merge except it's already in there. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wknight94 and nom. bikeable (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Just redirect to Albert Einstein. No need to actually delete the article, in case there turns out to be a good reason to expand it into a real article later (e.g. if somebody would publish a book on him or something). u p p l a n d 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There already is a book on him: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.51.7 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Because it's interesting and verifiable, and because there's no room for it in the Albert Einstein article. Or merge into something like Family of Albert Einstein. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Having separate articles clears things up. I'm sure Albert Einstein article will get full enought without his sons biography. --Easyas12c 11:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Half-inclined to suggest a speedy due to no claim of notability (neither schizophrenia nor reflected glory qualify), but too many keeps for that to be realistic. Space concerns in Albert Einstein are misplaced because we don't need more than a single line even in that article. --Malthusian (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Albert Einstein. See WP:BIO - people who are notable only for being related to someone notable should be noted in the main person's article. Stifle 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: FYI, I agree - except the Albert Einstein folks shot that down since that article's already too big (and it is huge). I voted delete because everything useful is already in Albert Einstein and Eduard's mother's article so no - or very little - merge necessary. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

keep Being Einstein's son is enough to get someone to try to search for information on him. Brokenfrog 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: And they should be able to find that information --- in Albert Einstein's article. WP:BIO is the issue here. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per Stifle's reasons. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; give it time! Matt Yeager 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as above.. give it time to grow. The biggest, most comprehensive and informative articles often start out as stubs which may seem unremarkable. Eurosong 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to meet WP:BIO to me - the name is known outside the context of Albert Einstein, and there is a book about him. Turnstep 02:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't heard one example of his name being notable outside of being the son of Albert Einstein. Has anyone read this book? I don't see what else you would write about him. He started showing signs of schizophrenia in 1930 - the year he turned 20. I can't imagine he accomplished much before age 20 and, from the little I know about schizophrenia, people rarely do much after the onset of schizophrenia either. I know - John Nash from the movie A Beautiful Mind - but his most noteworthy accomplishments were still before the onset of the illness, weren't they? Regardless, show me one example of John Nash-type notoriety in Eduard Einstein - besides his being Albert's son - and I'd agree with you. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2006 (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.