Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethmanns and Rothschilds


 * 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, default to keep. I do think that the discussion honed in on the core issue - whether these organizations in combination make a proper encyclopedia topic. Discussion as to the proper scope of the article may continue on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC) N.B. Per request, I will state that I believe that that through continued collaboration the article can be improved sufficiently to avoid a renomination. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bethmanns and Rothschilds

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is written like an essay and does not really add to what is already in articles like Rothschild family. I have never heard of the Bethmanns banking dynasty, so on this point I have no idea. Basically the article links two Jewish banking dynasties and doesn't really say a whole lot else. Also, there is naturally concerns about neutrality and what have you and overall it's just a lot of opinion that doesn't look like it can be salvaged. If any of it is useful, it should go into Rothschild family. Laval (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have shown by my response to roux's criticism (see Talk:Bethmanns and Rothschilds), I am willing to take on board suggestions for improvement. The nominator does not appear to have read closely, because the Article clearly states that the Bethmanns were not Jewish. As the Article's main author I recuse myself from voting on the deletion request.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to recuse yourself. This is not a "vote". You can "support" or "oppose" deletion or propose an alternate solution as I have in case there is no consensus for deletion. Laval (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Strikes me as a topic based on original research and synthesis. Merge what's worthwhile into the other articles and delete this one. It's like a GM and Ford article. If I'm wrong add some references establishing this topic as notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * References are already in the article, enough to establish that this is a topic deserving of its own article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep A useful combination topic, though I would suggest re-titling it a little more generally, perhaps to Jewish financial houses in Frankfurt. This is a major historical subject, and a useful comparison. It s a little limited as is, so instead of dividing it up, we can build on it. DGG (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why "Jewish financial houses in Frankfurt"? It would help if people actually looked at the article before expressing an opinion. Bethmanns and Rothschilds is a sub-article that is equidistant to its two main articles, namely House of Rothschild and House of Bethmann (or Bethmann family).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My error there, I admit that, recognizing one name and not the other, I carelessly assumed both families were Jewish. so it should be Financial houses in Frankfort


 * Delete This seems to be an essay devoted to WP:OR on a link between the two houses, maybe. Why else does it need a "conclusion"? Mangoe (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Like DGG mentioned, the article does cover a significant historical subject. But it currently reads like a school assignment for a comparison between two families. I learned no significance of pairing particularly these two families into this article. The content individually discusses each families role but at no point are they juxtaposed for comparison or initiation of their so-called rivalry explained. Also, is it possible to cover the significant information in individual articles about either family? If yes, then please do that. LeaveSleaves talk 20:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what the point of the article is to begin with. I get the idea there is some kind of thesis being pursued here, which makes it a case of original research at best. At worst, it is literally an essay with no apparent basis. Laval (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I found a few reliable sources that mention Bethmann and Rothschild as a single entity, like this article. Bethmann and Rothschild banks worked together closely enough, as is the purpose of this article, and they are mentioned that way a few times by these sources.  I found a sentence talking about how Frankfurt became of "international importance as a banking center" due to Bethmann and Rothschild in a book by Giebelhausen on page 77 here. In this article here (I am pretty sure this is not a "copy from wikipedia source" as I checked to make sure, and its not the same article on wikipedia) it cannot mention Bethmann without mentioning the other powerhouse bank of Rothschild.  In this thesis by Heyn here on page 158 and throughout it consistently mentions both Bethmann and Rothschild together and the strong financial impact they had.  In this book by Teichova here on page 42 it shows when both Bethmann and Rothschild worked together. Therefore I do not think it is OR, as it seems these two banking houses were studied together often and had a great impact together to warrant an article.  The article needs improvement but not deletion. --Banime (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good finds, Banime. I was aware of Udo Heyn already but not the other sources. All of them must be studied for the Article. I have been a bit laggardly of late and could should be farther ahead by now. I realize that the article needs more work and am prepared to do what I can to improve it. Just so anyone who wants to pitch in knows: English-language sources that are online, or mostly online, include (see the bibliography) Corti, Heyn, Holtfrerich, Stern: collaboration is by no means restricted to editors with access to libraries in Germany.
 * Regarding the question why this article cannot be merged into the Rothschild or Bethmann family articles: it is for the same reasons that any Wikipedia sub-article gets split off from its main article: to keep the length of the main article to a manageable length, to serve up in-depth information to those who want it instead of to all readers, and to avoid duplication. For if the unique content were transferred to Bethmanns it would be lacking at Rothschilds and vice versa. To copy it to both would be wasteful, and at least at Rothschilds would unbalance their article because IMHO Rothschilds is far too sketchy and sparsely written. With respect, the comparison to a fictitious "Obama and John F. Kennedy" article is silly, these two people never met and did not dynamically interact and influence each other as the Bethmanns and the Rothschilds did, complete with their impact on the broader European financial landscape and political events. The unfolding of this dynamic needs to be fleshed out more, but I already acknowledged that.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The biggest and overriding problem with this article is that it's not a topic for an encyclopedia. By that I mean to say this is an interesting essay topic, but I wouldn't expect to find it (or search for it) in an encyclopedia. The information is interesting, but might best be included in the relevant articles rather than creating a topic that is original.
 * Why not an article on "The Rothchilds and JP Morgan? Or the "German banks of this era and the Swiss banks" of this era? Or just "German and Swiss banks". Or an "Obama and John F Kennedy" article. "Banking and bartering". These are all fascinating and worthy topics. But this is an encyclopedia. I am not trying to criticize, but to explain the problem as I see it.
 * I think the authors and editors interested in this article need to think broadly about how to best fit this article into an encyclopedia. Should they work on the respective articles of the two banking families? Create a new article about the History of banking in Frankfurt? I don't know. But I still think this topic is contrived, and that's after looking at the new sources you provided Banime. You just haven't established for me that these two banking families are so intertwined and interconnected that they are an appropriate combined article topic. I'm not surprised to find them discussed together in books, just as I wouldn't be surprised to find Citibank and Bank of America discussed together. But why an article about both, together? Why not include the relevant information on the rivalry and whatever interrelations they had in the respective articles?
 * The second problem (which is not unrelated to the first) is that the article is written like an essay. It needs to be made encyclopedic. I would be happy to help address this, but per my topic title related concern, I don't think it makes sense at this point. Thank you for taking the time to consider my point of view, I hope it's helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good explanation. I think the comparison to Citibank and Bank of America is a little off though since they're not pretty much the two only decision making banks in a region.  I also see your points, however the biggest thing that stands out to me is what I found in Giebelhausen that, due specifically to both Bethmann and Rothschild, Frankfurt became an international financial powerhouse.  I think that makes the topic of both of them notable and would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.  However, I also see your point about how most of the information could also go into each separate article.  Hmm.  Well, for now I'll maintain my keep, and we'll see what consensus comes up with.  --Banime (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have one other comment which is that there is a big "under construction" on the House of Bethamnn article, and that article needs serious work. So it would seem logical to me to develop and perfect the parent article first, before giving birth to this novel subject matter. I haven't looked at the Roschild article(s) (there are banking and family articles about both groups) I'm too scared. All the information in this new article can be stowed away in a user's sandbox and it can be cut and pasted as appropriate, and returned to (if necessary) sometime in the future when a Banking history of Frankfurt, or (heaven forbid) a Bethmann and Rothschild article is needed. By the way, why isn't it Rothschild and Bethmann? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your confusion is understandable and is entirely my fault. The main Bethmanns article is Bethmann family, which is about 75 percent to "completion" (I realize that Wikipedia articles are never complete!) What you saw is Bethmann bank, which is indeed less than halfway there. Probably it should not even be in the article namespace at all (long story, I'll spare you the details.) The Bethmann bank started half a century earlier than the Rothschild bank (unfortunately there is no article yet on the bank begun by Mayer Amschel Rothschild nor on the Frankfurt branch continued by his son Amschel Mayer Rothschild, only on the family, its members and London-based N M Rothschild & Sons, which came later. Because the Bethmann bank ruled the roost together with Barings of London and Hope of Amsterdam for a half century before Mayer Amschel came on the scene, it should have its own article, also because it remained in business and independent until well into the second half of the 20th century. However, the half century or so (from about 1800 to 1850) in which the two banks and families were competing and sometimes collaborating (business-wise and politically) is so interesting from the viewpoint of historiography that it deserves its own article, namely Bethmanns and Rothschilds.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have regretfully further confused things with that explanation. Anyway, when you say the last half century is interesting, that is purely your opinion. That opinion does not justify an essay-like article which doesn't belong in WP. It is not an encyclopedia-type of article, because you have written it in such a way that it is your work and would be difficult for others to change without having to rewrite the entire article. Anyway, as I said, you are suggesting we keep this article based purely on your opinion that the history is interesting. I'm sure it is, but any pertinent info belongs in their respective articles, i.e. Rothschild family and House of Bethmann. Laval (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Banime. I agree with his reasoning and congratulate him on his good finds. While the article currently reads like an WP:OR essay, this problem can be addressed by rewriting it, not deleting it. As Banime points out, there are reliable sources treating them as a common entity and those sources are all we need to establish notability of the subject at hand. How the article should look like and such is not a question of this AfD.  So Why  12:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTABLE, but I would say it definitely requires sources. 89.243.56.221 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:NOTABLE? --Banime (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SYN. No sources, including those mentioned here, have these families as a joint topic. This article is actually a thesis seeking to advance a position that is not documented. The issues of essay and POV are just symptoms of an OR topic. Double Blue  (Talk) 10:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2008 (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.

(WOO HOO! EDIT CONFLICT) Earlier in this deletion review, three editors asked me separately to cast a vote. I declined this suggestion and decided to recuse myself instead, since any Keep vote from me would naturally invite the retort, "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" However, I do wish to make a recommendation now. But first, some comments. Some of the criticisms in this review have been of questionable utility:
 * "there is naturally concerns about neutrality and what have you" -- hmmm.... what?
 * "article links two Jewish banking dynasties" -- in fact: Rothschilds Jewish, Bethmanns Lutherans
 * "you have written it in such a way that it is your work and would be difficult for others to change without having to rewrite the entire article" (in fact, every article on WP is open to arbitrary editing and rewriting, this one is no exception)
 * "no sources, including those mentioned here, have these families as a joint topic" -- in fact, numerous sources among those cited in the bibliography study the rivalry between the Houses of Bethmann and Rothschild in detail.

Holtfrerich in Frankfurt as a Financial Center refers to the Bethmanns 31 times and to the Rothschilds 30 times (Google Books preview); Corti in Rise of the House of Rothschild refers to the Bethmann 28 times (Google Books preview); Udo Heyn in Private Banking and Industrialization especially covers this topic, his book refers to Bethmanns 30 times and to Rothschilds 35 times, the rivalry between the two houses is addressed at several points including pp. 98, 109, 110, for example on p.98: (Google Books preview).

These three English-language sources are available online, which brings me to my next point. In Bethmann family, the article on the Bethmann family history, I have had to rely largely on German-language sources, especially on the early (pre-18th century) years. When it comes to the first half of the 19th century, however, German-language sources are supplemented quite nicely by English translations and works written originally in English. Bethmanns and Rothschilds is not an article to be WP:OWNed. If you do not live in Germany, you may not be able to get your hands on all the German books, but just the three above can serve as a juicy steak to sink your teeth into. I believe this conclusively takes care of questions of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

Now, about WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, WP:TONE and WP:SYNTHESIS.

As to the first, full disclosure: I encountered Johann Philipp Freiherr von Bethmann (1924-2007) once and one of his sons attended the same high school as I. However, he was a grade ahead of me and we did not know each other at all well. I have not been in contact with any of the family since school days and in particular have not had any contact with them since I began writing these articles. What brought me to Wikipedia originally was the grotesque falsehoods promulgated by the author of a work of pseudohistory about, among numerous other topics, the Bethmann family (see my exchanges with that individual at Talk:The Jew of Linz). In the course of that discussion, I decided to translate de:Bethmann (Familie) from the German Wikipedia, and having once begun, I discovered that I liked it and began writing some of my own articles. However, I am not employing any first-hand or privileged information whatsover but working solely from published secondary sources. I write without fear or favor and see no reason to suppress any information about skeletons in the Bethmann family closet that I encounter (see, for example, my footnote about the planned investment in the slave trade in the Johann Jakob Bethmann article.)

Next, the matter of WP:TONE. I realize that some of my descriptions of Simon Moritz von Bethmann (1768-1826) have been overly adulatory and hence stray from NPOV. In my defense, I would say that some historians describing him have likewise run afoul of that principle. Some historical personages are just bone evil, and others (like SMvB) are examples of humanity's finest. However, I realize that I went too far and have begun rewriting some of the descriptions. As to WP:SYNTHESIS, I am not aiming to develop a thesis here. My aim is to tell an exciting story but to tell it exclusively based on the already published accounts by reputable authors, without interference or embellishment. There is an element of complication because the Article combines two notable subjects into a single topic. However, there is precedent for that. Many dozens of Wikipedia articles are of the form "A and B", and some of them are highly rated. To see but a few examples, enter "Religion and" into the search box and see what comes up. Likewise for "Christianity and" or "Differences between". There even is an Article on the extremely contentious topic of Comparison of Windows and Linux that survived two AfD nominations. The trick in writing this kind of Article well, I think, is to avoid reduplication of content already in the "A" and the "B" article, and to limit oneself strictly to notable interaction between the two.

Finally, there is the question of the current condition of the article. I am well aware that there are many holes. Some of the sources I have yet to read, other sources that I read have yet to be worked into the Article. (I would hope that others join forces with me here.) The Article has been rated (not by me) as "C-Class", so that there is no danger of readers taking it as an example of the finest work that Wikipedia is capable of. Of course there is more work to be done, but that should not be a reason for deletion. And that brings me to my recommendation. Based on what I wrote above, I recommend that the closing admin close this discussion not as a Keep/no consensus/delete, but by sending it back as a Dismiss to where it should be in the first place, namely the Article's Talk page, in line with WP:ATD, which states: --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like you were three minutes too late for the AfD, however you can put all this at the talk page of the article so people see it.--Banime (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)