Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl-Hermann Geib

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. Nobody seems to really support the deletion proposal, and the impression I get from this discussion is that while the sources are a bit sketchy and the article needs work, people think that we have enough sourcing for an article.  Sandstein  10:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Hermann Geib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Inadequate references, so notability is not established. Two of the references are broken (unviewable), and the other three are to the individual's own works. There is a declined draft at Draft:Karl-Hermann Geib which should used to improve the article. The author may have been trying to userfy this draft, but it appears to be an article space and is inadequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I have changed this article, Karl-Hermann Geib taking into account all remarks should. What shall I do more? --Nordosm (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Nordosm: is this article your translation of ru:Гейб,_Карл-Германн? It is okay to translate, it is even encouraged, but for licensing reasons attribution must be given. You may do this with an edit summary such as Content in prior edits is translated from the existing Russian Wikipedia article at [[:ru:%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B1,_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BB-%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD]]; see its history for attribution.. See WP:ATTSIT for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Judging from the history, Nordosm appears to be the originator and main author of the Russian article as well. --Hegvald (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Nordosm and Robert McClenon: I’ve edited this article providing a RS to its subject had how instrumental he was to Germany’s heavy water production. Hopes this helps, and as time allows I’ll provide a few more RS references I’ve found on him too. ThanksPicomtn (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Nordosm and Robert McClenon: I’ve done some more editing on this article and have created an article for Jerome S. Spevack linking back to Karl-Hermann Geib and have revised the lead at Girdler sulfide process so that it now links back to both of them. Hope this helps. ThanksPicomtn (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Nordosm and Robert McClenon: I’ve added Karl-Hermann Geib to the Russian Alsos article highlighting his association with Max Vollmer. Though the 1955 CIA report reference is ok, I believe the reference I’ve citied is superior in both its scope and knowledge, and which does itself reference the 1955 CIA report. Thanks.Picomtn (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- It is going to be difficult to get reliable sources on matter that was at the time a military secret. Germany heavy water production was something suspected to be important in WWII. Accordingly the people involved are potentially notable. I have not attempted get at the sources to see if they support it. The fact that Nordosm is citing his own work, should not rule the article out, but it would be better if he was citing the sources for that work as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is he citing his own work? --Hegvald (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Picomtn and Peterkingiron:

Content in this edit is translated from the existing Russian Wikipedia article ru:Гейб,_Карл-Германн The basis for the Russian article was declassified materials in Russian. References to them in the English text would not be useful. In scientific literature in English at the mention of Geib often referred to ^[1] Link to it was an early version of the article Karl-Hermann Geib , but was removed as  (fails WP:RS, WP:EL)  19:32, March 17, 2013 Jayjg  --Nordosm (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm: Here is an excellent english language source on this articles topic from the University of British Columbia that I used to include information about him in the article and says:

Although never used in Germany, Karl-Hermann Geib in Leuna in 1943 developed what we now regard as the most cost-effective process for producing heavy water: the dual temperature exchange sulphide process (see appendix and fig. 10). Contemporaneously, the process was also developed by J. S. Spevack at Columbia University[37], and his process became the basis of the post-war North American plants under the name of the Girdler Process, named after the company which first exploited it. North American scientists were not aware of Geib’s work for many years after the war; Maloney et al. in their book “The Production of Heavy Water” (1955)[38] complain that relevant German wartime work was still classified.

Unfortunately Geib was not able to benefit from his work; in 1945 he was taken to the USSR, along with many others, who were given a 10-year contract to work on fission and aerodynamics. Many German scientists found this very congenial and some even went as far as to describe these 10 years as the time of their lives. However, Geib was not so happy and he made the mistake of applying for asylum in Canada, giving the name of Professor E. W. R. Steacie as a reference. Officials at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow did not know what to do with him and told him to come back the next day. That was the last time he was seen. His wife in Germany received his effects in the mail.^[1]

Hope this helps. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm: I still can't clear up one thing about Geib, Russian declassified sources say he was brought to the USSR on October 21, 1946 and are very specific about that date and time. US-Canadian sources though give a date of 1945 (no month or day), which I believe they dervive from the 1955 CIA report. Which one is right? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm: I have further cross referenced this articles subject with Heavy water#Production and Heavy water#Soviet Union. Hope this helps. Picomtn (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Picomtn:

Your quote from Chris Waltham is not complete. Once the point has to be a link [33] . It link to the mentioned book  “The Virus House» by David Irving, the mention of which is not recommended to Wikipedia. The answer to your question is in the the source.^[1]

Thanks. Nordosm (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nordosm: Thank you for this journal report! There are now 3 firm references to 1946 instead of the one in 1945. Also, from the information in this report I was able to build out on his family in this article. Picomtn (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sandstein: With the substantial work done on this article, do you believe it should be deleted? If so, why? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on that.  Sandstein  10:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It looks like he played a significant role in the development of heavy water. The sources are adequate, but appear stronger than they actually are, as they are padded with ones that describe the general background but don't mention Geib specifically. On the other hand, that may be the best we can do for this subject. The article still copyediting needs, as whoever wrote it has many verbs at the ends of their sentences placed, a sign of being translated from German. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important figure in German history. Sources adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep –  This^[1] is a strong reference for such a spooky period and can be built upon. Geib is notable. Keep plugging away at it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:56, 22 March 2016 (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.