Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Cronman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joachim Cronman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I at first came to this article because the large colorful crest caught my eye. I noticed the article was rather short, so I decided to read it. After reading it, I do not feel any more edified as to just why this Cronman chap needs an article about him. Ok, I see that he had ancestors. I see that he had descendants. I see he was a colonel. I see that he claims a very eye-catching and large family crest of some kind. None of this makes of any significance in western history.

As a side note, I did read the talk page and saw this article was nominated for deletion before. Enough time has passed since the last AFD, which, upon having reading it, looks me to have been influenced by passions aroused over the unilateral administrative speedy deletion of the article rather than the merits of the article itself.

In closing I would like to quote wikipedian User:Balloonman's previous statement as to why this article does not meet our standards: "Being a colonel does not notability make. And fighting in battles does not make one notable. Heck, all three combined do not do so. Not every colonel who fought and died from the civil war, WWI, WWII, vietnam, Korea, Gulf Coast, Desert Storm, Afganastan, Russian civil war, war of 1812, War of the Roses, 100 years War, etc are notable. Based upon the sources provided, he could have been some minor nobel or wealthy merchant or related to somebody important given an assignment, title and killed in the opening minutes of his first conflict. Remember being a colonel back then didn't necessarily mean career military or that you earned the position."Torkmann (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can date my genealogy back to the 17th centry as well, and I know "who the hell" all those people are. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets Wikipedia standard for notability and verifiability. When Wikipedia says no genealogy, it means I am not to write about your grandma. It doesn't exclude writing about the parents, siblings and children of people that are notable in the article on the notable person. If that were true we would have to remove 20% of each president's article. I am glad that shiny blue objects attract your attention, but it sure looks like you are following me around Wikipedia and nominating articles by me. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Young_Clark. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whoa! Please chillax...keep it civil. Shiny blue objects? C'mon... Torkmann (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am always civil. Please notify me when you nominate an article I start. Out of more than 3 million articles, you just nominated two of mine. It gives the appearance you are following me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me and User:Drawn Some, and whoever else you think is "stalking" you this week...Torkmann (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Young_Clark, 2 articles by me nominated out of > 3 million. User:Drawn Some also stated that it wasn't targeted, just came across them, for him it was about 33 of my articles nominated in > 3 million. And of course another red flag is that before you nominated Cronman you contacted User:Drawn Some and wrote: "I am going to list the Joachim Cronman article for deletion soon. I just thought I'd give you a heads up on it." Your edits before that were on South Park, but you said "[You] came to this article because the large colorful crest caught [your] eye." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see the Clark article as being particularly relevant. It uses conventional book and news sources; its main problems are a paucity of material and the related question of how notable what he did was. I think with more explanation it would be fine. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As I said before, being commander of a significant military installation is notable, and it seems the fort at Daugavgrīva was very significant [1] . However, I very emphatically disagree that merely having records survive a few hundred years makes for notability. that every member of minor nobility is notable: RAN, whom I often agree with, is in this instance confused between including mention of people in articles and writing articles about them. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many times does one need to vote on this matter? No significant changes have occurred since the last afd, so there is no good reason to vote again. The article shouldn't have been listed this time, as there is no consensus going to be reached this time. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cronman has no significant coverage in any of the cited references. Those that aren't run-of-the-mill directories (Anrep, Lewenhaupt, Låstbom) mention Cronman once, in rare cases twice, either in passing or in translation of travelogues and diaries, ei primary sources. References like Grosjean & Murdoch and Duncan only tell us who he married and use the already mentioned Swedish references as sources. There is nothing that sets Cronman apart from tens of thousands of other officers and members of the nobility in early modern Swedish history. He didn't participate in any battles and he didn't distinguish himself in any way that is traceable. I don't know exactly where the idea that any fortification commander who ever served (though only before the industrialized era) comes from, but it seems like a perfectly obvious straw man argument to me. In this case it is also quite entirely irrelevant since there are absolutely no details about Cronman's activities at Neumünde nor that it was more important than any of his other commands. The one source that should give a good account of Cronman's career as a fortification commander, Svenska fortifikationens historia 6:2, biografiska anteckningar ("History of Swedish fortifications 6:2, biographical notes", see discussion here), doesn't even have a separate entry for him. This article is in my opinion a perfect example of why the mere mention of someone in various references, even if there are several of them, shouldn't be confused with notability. Peter Isotalo 08:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was one of thirty-odd top-level officers in the army of Charles XI (hardly "tens of thousands of other officers"), and Anrep, in which a detailed entry is devoted to Cronman, is rather more than a "run-of-the-mill directory". The question of finding more details is irrelevant; we have enough details for a serviceable stub already. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule for directory is to exclude people from Wikipedia if they only appear in a phone book or similar directory. The phone book is reliable but provides three facts: name, address, telephone number. We don't exclude people that are notable just because the only biographical information comes from a source that is called a directory. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't misquote me. My statement was about "officers and members of the nobility in early modern Swedish history". Narrowing the context down to a specific reign is just a way of inflating the uniqueness of any given individual. The "detailed entry" in Anrep is no more significant or verbose than that of the thousands of other Swedish nobles that are listed along with minimal biographical information, ie sorted primary source material without secondary treatment. Whether Anrep is a particularly notable directory or not is not for me to comment on, nor do I understand why you would. In Swedish it would normally be referred to as a matrikel, a geneaological directory. The article on him (created by Richard) is even referenced with a work on the history of Swedish genealogy. And as for "one of the thirty-odd top-level offices", the entry for Cronman in Lewenhaupt's Karl XII:s officerare, reasonably the most accurate measurement of his importance, is actually shorter than most entries (also in the thousands). As far as I recall, Cronman's entry was even no longer or even shorter than that of Anders Örbom, whose article was deleted for pretty much the same reasons stated here.
    • To those reading this thread, I'd like to point out that Paul has been claiming that notability is just around the corner since the beginning of the second AfD. The problem is that the half dozen additional references that were were actually found later turned out to be just as trivial in their coverage of Cronman as the ones that were already cited. They did not result in any noticeable expansion of the article and certainly no greater clarity about Cronman's supposed notability. And as far as I've understood, in this discussion Paul has made a habit to comment on the relevance of references he has never read or even laid his eyes on. Peter Isotalo 11:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, if you will make this personal, perhaps I should indicate to others here that you take a special interest in having this particular article deleted to make a point about what degree of coverage and what types of sources you consider a minimum requirement for notability (but have yet to establish consensus for here). Anybody who reads the second AfD and the article talkpage will find you saying as much. They will not find me saying "notability is imminent"; the closest I can find is an early conditional statement that if the claims in an earlier version of the article were true then checking standard sources should be enough to verify them (something you rather bizarrely characterized as "asking for negative evidence", even while setting about doing it in an exemplary fashion). Those reading through the records of the earlier AfD and the talkpage will also see that you have repeatedly claimed to consult printed sources and found that they say "nothing of interest" without giving those of us who do not have access to them any indication of what they actually do say (so even when you claimed to check that Cronman is indeed mentioned in published works about Tartu university, you failed to add to the article, or even to the talkpage, any information as to when or what he studied, or indeed whether he is listed as a student, a benefactor, or in some other capacity, but you did think it worth your time to say that you didn't consider the coverage substantial - in other words, you are interpreting rather than reporting the sources, setting yourself up as a filter for what other wikipedians should be allowed to know). You've done some excellent work weeding out unverified assertions, but you really shouldn't be trying to make this one article a "test case" for your personal philosophy of wikipedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This wouldn't be first time that you've tried to accuse me of withholding info,[2] and like last time, I think it's pretty uncalled for.[3] Why you choose to bring this up now, eventhough you had plenty of time to request this supposedly invaluable info, is a mystery to me. I openly declared that I forgot to take down the details, but after I made my last post on the article talkpage, I offered to prive Richard with all the references.[4] All the references I managed to find have been scanned and sent to him.
    I've already declared that I believe it not to be Wikipedia's business to include entries on historical individual just because they belonged to randomly selected groups. With that in mind, I naturally don't see why anyone should complain that I'm not adding information which I believe has no bearing on notability. You obviously have your own agenda in this, and you're perfectly welcome to consider your own POV superior, but you're definitely not in a position of accusing me or others of politicking merely for disagreeing with your methods. What I've criticizing you for has not been bad faith, but the way I feel that you exaggerate the importance of sources and injection of fairly dubious claims. In my view, the rough guesswork, speculation and and fairly selective quoting of policy that you have provided has inflated the relevance of the references beyond anything that can be comfortably accommodated in WP:N and WP:RS. While you may not agree that you've actually said "notability is around the corner", you have in my experience been very eager to imply that every single scrap of biographical info that has popped up in searches has to be looked up, translated, read, re-read and scrutinized by yourself before we can even think of Joachim von Cronman as an unsuitable article subject for Wikipedia. Peter Isotalo 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't really follow - you seem to be reading a lot more into anything (or everything) that I've said than I ever put there myself. Nor is this the place for lengthy discussions of your interpretations of my words. If there's anything else you want to get off your chest, you're very welcome to post on my talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep the bad faith accusations to yourself, k? Peter Isotalo 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry - did I introduce personalities into this discussion? --Paularblaster 06:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did. Criticism of your methods of argumentation do not amount to personal attacks. Waving WP:POINT about and making clumsy implications of withholding information, however, is an open accusation of malicious intent, and is pretty personal. Peter Isotalo 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrational keep. Honestly I have no explanation for this vote apart from affection to shiny blue objects (thank you RAN for this splendid bit of wit). But I suspect that, wikipedia has more urgent things to do than fighting dead Swedes again and again. The 2nd AFD ran only a month before. NVO (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I suppose we could keep this as a testimony to the role availability of genealogical data has in making these people look notable, but since the article all but confesses he never did anything of note, I'll say Delete. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand (although I don't share) the animus against genealogy, but it isn't genealogical information that put Cronman in command of one of the 15 regular infantry regiments in Charles XI's army, stationed that regiment as the garrison regiment at Narva (just when the fortifications were about to be massively extended), or, early in the Great Northern War, gave him command of the fortification that stands between Riga and the sea. None of that is "obviously" notable, but if none of us thought it notability enough we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that I am having is the lack of narrative. I can see that he was made a colonel at the end of the Scanian War, and therefore served in peace until 1700, when the Great Northern War began. As far as I can tell, the fortress where he served his final post didn't figure in the course of the war until the Russians took it, by which point Cronman had already died. I'm sure others will disagree, but being commandant at places where nothing happened is not the career path to notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fortress at Neumünde/Dünamünde/Daugagriva was captured by Saxon troops in 1700 and recaptured by the Swedes in 1701 in the crossing of the Düna. The fortress saw action from very early on in the war, but there is no indication that Cronman served at that time. Lewenhaupt, which is a directory of officers who served under Charles XII, has no information about Cronman's participating in any battle at any point in his career. Johan Cronman, Joachim Cronman's son, on the other, is listed in the same source as participating in multiple battles both under Charles XI and Charles XII, so it's highly doubtful that it has simply been overlooked. We can always speculate that Cronman remained in Neumünde until his death, but there's nothing to prove that and none of the references appear to suggest it. Peter Isotalo 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule for directory is to exclude people from Wikipedia if they only appear in a phone book or similar directory. The phone book is reliable but provides three facts: name, address, telephone number. We don't exclude people that are notable just because the only biographical information comes from a source that is called a directory. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from previous closing admin I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (2nd nomination) as no consensus less than a month ago, noting that "[a]fter a mature discussion, there is broad and thoughtful disagreement"; I do not see a significantly different outcome on the cards for this discussion, and question its utility.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial mentions don't make this dude notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent sources. For "keep" voters who may not have read WP:GNG, it may be time to do so, and to ponder the meaning of those words. Passing mentions in genealogical directories are not a substitute for the depth of coverage we demand. I'd also suggest a close look at deleting Fritz Cronman. - Biruitorul Talk 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your helpful link takes us to the words, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". A dedicated entry on an individual is more than a trivial (or passing) mention. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify what is at stake here: Wikipedia is, first and foremost, "an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources." What we have here is an individual who has dedicated entries in at least two reputable third-order works of reference, namely Anrep, a specialized work on the Swedish aristocracy, and Lewenhaupt, a specialized work on the Swedish military. The entries are short - what we would call stubs. He isn't notable enough to have his own entry in the Swedish dictionary of national biography (which would put notability beyond question), but nor are we talking about mere listing in army rolls, parish registers, and matriculation registers. Anrep and Lewenhaupt used such primary sources to create their own published works of reference. It's not our job to interpret the sources, but simply to ascertain that two different reliable, tertiary sources that are paper think him worthy of stub-like inclusion. These are not "general" works of reference, but there is no requirement that they should be - as indicated by the terms "general and specialized". There are, as you can see from the discussion above, those who would say that these specialist works of reference should be regarded as "directories", but that is to give WP:DIRECTORY a broader remit than I, and I suspect many others, would be comfortable with. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule for directory is to exclude people from Wikipedia if they only appear in a phone book or similar directory. The phone book is reliable but provides three facts: name, address, telephone number. We don't exclude people that are notable just because the only biographical information comes from a source that is called a directory. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Anrep and Lewenhaupt merely compiled primary source information. It's a collection of minimal biographical info without any second hand treatment. They really haven't made any interpretations of the data, which is why I believe they should be considered a directory. There's really not any difference between taking the information from them and taking directly from the primary sources they've used. At least not if we see it through the perspective of our own policies. Peter Isotalo 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a world of difference between raw primary sources, archival finding lists, and the sort of compilation of information under biographical headings that Lewenhaupt and Anrep provide. It's not because these publications are, in some sense of the word, "directories", that WP:DIRECTORY appplies, any more than we should apply WP:DICTIONARY to the Dictionary of National Biography (a more egregious error, but of the same type). --Paularblaster 07:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    As you've said yourself, we are to avoid interpretations at all cost; we're only supposed to report the interpetation of others. In this case, however, we have nothing but raw facts pulled straight out of archives and official records. The only secondary treatment that these facts have received are that they've been transferred to a different, more easily accessible, printed medium, but without commentary, explanations of cause and effect or any semblance of historical analysis or theorizing. Peter Isotalo 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I said we're only supposed to report the interpretation of others. It is quite important that we also report the facts provided by others, regardless of whether or not the people providing the facts discuss or interpret them. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article hasn't changed significantly since the last round, and neither has my opinion. He doesn't inherit notability from the castle, and he doesn't inherit notability from his family. I accept both as indications of notability, but since after an apparently thourough search by Peter and Richard there still is no significant coverage in multiple third-pary sources on him, those indications aren't enough – in my opinion, in the apparent consensus opinion at WP:MILMOS#NOTE, and in the opinion of WP:N. Personally, in absence of a strong argument that could sway the previous consensuslessness, I would have waited a while longer with any re-nomination. Amalthea 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning in the previous AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as the last AFD, which was less than a month ago! He was mentioned in many books, and is famous for being the commander of a famed fortress during a notable battle in a notable war. Notice how the fortress is a blue link, as is the battle, and the war itself? By clicking on these and reading up on the information, you can understand why this person is notable. Newspapers at the time would've given him and his actions plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "newspapers" (note the plural) do you know to have been active in Sweden in the 1680s, other than perhaps Ordinari Post Tijdender? And you do realize that speculating about the hypothetical existence of 17th-century press reports is no substitute for the actual sources demanded by WP:BURDEN, right? - Biruitorul Talk 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's the German-language press in Riga, for one thing. The article talkpage already has a link to digitized Swedish newspapers - it just needs somebody with a Royal Library login to check. --Paularblaster 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
        • None of the references indicate that Cronman ever participated in any battle or war whatsoever. The article doesn't say so either. I'm suspecting that Dream Focus has simply failed to read the article or any of the relevant discussion since the beginning of the last AfD. Peter Isotalo 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your suggestion that we use 17th-century newspapers from Riga crashes into another policy, one you should ponder: WP:PSTS. There's a reason why Augustine of Canterbury doesn't cite the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or why Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) doesn't cite the Boston Gazette. It's because for events of a certain age, any source from that era is essentially a primary source. Of course, there's some elasticity to this notion, but ca. 1685 would seem to fit the bill. Moreover, it's rather telling that no modern scholar has found fit to write in any meaningful depth about Cronman, whereas for Swedes of roughly the same period (say Queen Christina or Axel Oxenstierna), in-depth coverage by modern scholars is readily available. - Biruitorul Talk 03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You asked a question, I answered it. Then you go off at a tangent about other stuff. But in light of your new remarks, I am curious about when WP:NTEMP stopped being the guideline. (Editing to add: and of course, as you know, we already have actual sources in the form of two different biographical compendia compiled 150-200 years after Cronman's death; the issue of press coverage is a presumption about what additional sources are likely to be available to flesh out an article on somebody of this standing.) --Paularblaster 07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, but would benefit greatly from inclusion of more material about Mr. Cronman himself and his exploits. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its adequate enough for notability, as I chimed in on the last AfD. But more importantly, as Skomorokh, the closing admin of the last AfD, which closed less than a month, wrote: "I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (2nd nomination) as no consensus less than a month ago, noting that "[a]fter a mature discussion, there is broad and thoughtful disagreement"; I do not see a significantly different outcome on the cards for this discussion, and question its utility." --Milowent (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The renomination is vexatiously disruptive per WP:DEL. In any case, our deletion policy requires more than a quick skim before starting a deletion debate. The nominator should please engage with articles at their talk page before coming here. As for the substantive issue, the article has reasonable promise and no satisfactory reason has been presented to suppress further work. The article should be retained in accordance with our editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Umbralcorax. It is well sourced and if we're still today debating of him, he is definitely notable. --Cyclopiatalk 00:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just pointing out a few links: [5], p[6], [7]. This has nothing to do with notability, but is funny. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete lack of any sources that discuss or analyse the subject of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with overwhelmig consensus above, i.e. that a commander with wartime experience verified in multiple sources is notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia and obvious relevant to geneologists and military historians who use Wikipedia as a reference guide. We clearly gain nothing worthwhile by deletion here, but by contrast provide information to those interested in it, which it is apparent from so many editors wanting it kept across three discussions, clearly such an interest exists. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been pointed out several times, in article talk, in this AfD and the one before it, that Cronman has no documented wartime experience of any kind. All the available references indicated that he never served in any war whatsoever. Are you deliberately ignoring this obvious descrepancy or is factual accuracy simply not of any interest to you? Peter Isotalo 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no compelling need for a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit to be rid of an article backed up by sources that is of interest to readers and editors. Why such an article would bother people is beyond me. Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, who said anything about having to prove a compelling need to delete an article. If it falls short of our (constantly evolving) Wikipedia standards, then it gets deleted. Plenty of porn stars are of (great) interest to readers and are written about in countless sources, for instance, but that alone is not enough to survive a deletion. Unless sufficiently accomplished or significant in the field, the porn biography will be deleted. Joachim Cronman is a porn star of the seventeenth century. Interesting, but ultimately unaccomplished and insignificant. Torkmann (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources merely assert that he existed. Beyond from the mind-numbing trivia summoned to make this article look important, there's nothing worth a mention. Another cog in what seems like a project to have articles on everybody. Dahn (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of any sources that discuss the subject at all. Basically, the logic behind the sourcing on this would allow mention in a phone book to establish encyclopedic notability as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Given the sources and what his role was, clearly notable. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what role is actually being assigned to him? None of the references have anything to say about what he actually accomplished. And there's certainly no references that have anything to say on the importance of the Neumünde fortification. Peter Isotalo 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he is still appearing in Finnish history textbooks, he is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, nobody has shown that he is appearing in Finnish history textbooks. Secondly, even if the subject were mentioned in Finnish history textbooks, one would have to establish the reliability of the textbook and the general educational system of Finland. I for one would not put too much stock in the schooling of a nation whose main interests seem to be amorous encounters with reindeer and sitting around in a sauna eight hours a day. Torkmann (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires no such task for notability, and doesn't want editors engaging in original research to determine whether, a textbook with edition 1 published in 1947 and edition 2 published in 1988 and edition 3 in 1990, and held in the library of the University of California, is notable. If the University of California and Google Books say they are notable by their standards they are notable for Wikipedia. This is just more of Torkmann's disruptive nonsense. See the other article I wrote that he nominated along with this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Young Clark and a reminder of his communication with my other wikistalker User:Drawn Some. Torkmann wrote: "I am going to list the Joachim Cronman article for deletion soon. I just thought I'd give you a heads up on it." As a reminder User:Drawn Some nominated over 20 of my articles over a period of three days. See for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Roche and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Clay Ide --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defining Savon historia as a textbook is your own, homebrewed definition, Richard. No matter what importance you want to assign to it, trying to claim that its supposed notability automatically passes on to anyone merely mentioned in it is completely specious.
And, Torkmann, keep your embarrasing ethnic stereotypes to yourself
Peter Isotalo 06:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "a textbook with edition 1 published in 1947 and edition 2 published in 1988 and edition 3 in 1990, and held in the library of the University of California, is notable." (emphasis added) I said the book was notable not anyone in it. This was to counter Torkmann's argument that "one would have to establish the reliability of the textbook". Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summation While only a dozen or so facts make up this mini biography, he was important enough in history as the Commandant of Neumünde to have the facts of his life appear in Finnish history books, German books, Swedish biographical compendia, and in an English book as an explanatory note for being the person most likely mentioned in extant letters from the period. Why would we delete this and make the next serious researcher of the period, go though all the work, once again, to compile information on the man? Arguments for deletion have been that the sources are primary or were directories, that is nonsense. Whatever documents Anrep and others used to compile their mini biographies were the primary documents. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. The rule against directories was to say that appearing in say, a telephone book did not make you notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joachim_Cronman_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137951004"