Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Dziedzik


 * 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   delete. No reason given for keeping. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank Dziedzik

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

Lots of people show up in the Venona papers, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The papers themselves do not prove the guilt of anyone involved, as attested to by the relevant article (Venona papers) and the presence of an American president. They contain only decryptions and code names by which the Soviets referred to various people, including Democratic administration officials and the commander-in-chief himself (although his entry was deleted from the List of Americans in the Venona papers, the entry of little-known-people who figure there does not get equivalent favor). A great lot of the Category:American spies for the Soviet Union consists of similar articles based on material by conservative historians Haynes & Klehr, who identify these people as spies based on their reading of the Venona papers. Even if their conclusions are stellar, the majority of the entries are stubs based on passing mention on the material of Haynes & Kler. In fact, as it is written right now, this article is devoid of any scholarly information, other than transmitting the accusation of spying and including its subject in the American spies for the Soviet Union category, populated by many similar nonnotables included on the basis of Haynes & Klehr's conclusions. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The mention in Venona doesn't merit notability. Even if it did, since that is his sole path to notability, it could be called WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. nobs (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - While Niteshift is right, I think that the fact that so little additional information is available is more of a concern, since this article cannot, given this fact, be more than a stub. – ClockworkSoul 02:07, 1 August 2009 (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.