Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August Gebert

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. Note that Unscintillating's point about notability is on-target. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August Gebert

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

Article provides no clues of notability. Google test only delivers 406 hits in all languages. German WP has no article about him. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read and follow WP:BEFORE and let us know that there are insufficient refs at Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News archive before nominating a bio for deletion. Please do not cite the number of Google hits you found (whether large or small), because Google includes many nor-reliable sources and mirrors of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, man, stop with you bad faith comments...
- You warned me already for getting flak, nice that you give it yourself. In my opinion an article must show notability, not external sources. It is up to the original author to give evidence of notability, not for newpage-patrollers to check if an article is maybe notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is what I said in bad faith? You launched a number of ill-conceived AFD noms in a short period of time, which ignored the guidelines of the English Wikipedia. Nothing good can come of that. It is most definitely the job of an AFD nominator to check for sources which would contribute to notability, If you disagree with that, then try and get a consensus to change WP:BEFORE, rather than ignoring it.Edison (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profiled in Revolutionary refugees: German socialism in Britain, 1840-1860 by Christine Lattek, pages 95-96, and in Exiles from European revolutions: refugees in mid-Victorian England by Sabine Freitag. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator, please note that the Article namespace checklist at the new page patrol procedure calls for new page patrolers to follow WP:BEFORE. It goes on to say "If the article is unreferenced or poorly referenced, you may be able to improve the article by adding better references." Thank you for your consideration. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Before is not mandatory, sorry. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that WP:GNG are met. Coverage appears to be insignificant, and there seems to be no way to produce a biography of the individual from the sources presented so far. I would say this even deletable as a WP:CSD#A7 speedy, as membership in a revolutionary organization is not a claim of notability. Failing deletion, redirect to Communist League would also work, and keep all the essential information in this article. —Kusma (t·c) 07:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources cited by Cullen328 above and the source showing in the footnotes. That's three mentions in the literature, enough to provide verification for this stub article. Certainly room for improvement of the piece. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. With due respect to Cullen's research, the two books cited give this person only a brief one-sentence mention, not a "profile" that I could find - and that sentence is in virtually identical wording, indicating that one book probably used the other as a source. A few of his letters to Engels turn up in archives [1] [2] but that's it. Not even close to "significant coverage". --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but MelanieN's assessment of the coverage in Revolutionary refugees: German socialism in Britain, 1840-1860 by Christine Lattek is incorrect. Lattek devotes 150 words to describing August Gebert on page 96 of that book, after a brief initial mention on page 95. The entire section can be read on Google Books - it's not behind a pay wall. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Sources on google books are scant, and the best ones are in German, but they hint that he may have been locally influential in the 1848 revolutions. In my book this amounts to borderline notability. I could see the case for deletion, but I don't think the article is incorrect or damaging to the encyclopedia. Them From Space 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep. His notability is now evidenced by the sources. Were this an "up and coming" figure I would say that he still needs proof of enduring notability; but, being a historical figure, he likely has recieved more coverage that we haven't been able to find. Them From Space 22:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)August Gebert[reply]

Delete. It's a case of "what's to keep?". There is no notable content in the article itself. Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that the nominator looked at the 32 Google books found from using the search [Gebert, Willich, Schapper]. The Google snippet from Exiles from European Revolutions states, "The most successful journey was undertaken by August Gebert of the Central Authority, who assembled nearly thirty sympathisers in Magdeburg for three days..." Revolutionary refugees: German socialism in Britain, 1840-1860 By Christine Lattek p. 96 states that Gebert was active in the Communist League in Switzerland in 1848, where "he argued that all had the right to 'an equal part in all activities, and equal rights to everything nature and human industriousness produce, that no one can idle at others' expense, but each has to contribute to the benefit of the whole'.¹⁴ Gebert fought with the Besançon corps in the Imperial Constitution campaign. Expelled in April 1850, he moved in with Willich on his arrival in London...meanwhile chairing the CABV's Whitechapel branch." The CABV was the German Communist Workers' Educational Union. Soon thereafter, Gebert was involved in expelling Marx and Engells. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion the article should proof the notability of the subject, not research elsewhere. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BEFORE says, "Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies on notability..." WP:N says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."
  - WP:BEFORE says, "Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. Some pages should be improved rather than deleted." WP:DEL says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases."
  - WP:Editing policy states, "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia..." Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It also states that it is not mandatory... Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refs found by Cullen328 and Unscintillating. Edison (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that an article does not make a claim of notability is an assertion against content. Content policies are not generally involved with deletion policy—deletion criteria exist if the entire content fails the content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), or the entire content falls into WP:What Wikipedia is not. The common misconception regarding the claim of notability comes from one of the speedy deletion criteria, A7, but A7 makes it clear that WP:Notability is a higher and different standard. WP:Notability for a topic exists independently of both the existence of an article on Wikipedia and the content of such an article. Unscintillating (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2011 (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.