Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavus Zesch


 * 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. Steve Smith (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Gustavus Zesch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet the subject-specific Notability criteria for military personnel (WP:SOLDIER) and there's no evidence in my WP:BEFORE search of anything more than trivial, passing mentions or run-of-the-mill "This person was here" type comments. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: as non-notable soldier. Quis separabit?  15:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:SOLDIER. The current sources are just name checks and contain no significant coverage of him or his actions.  Jbh  Talk  16:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't pass WP:NSOLDIER Chetsford (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Only passing mentions here and there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't pass SOLDIER. Some congressional hearings and the like. Not enough coverage for SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a clear example where consensus can get it wrong. There are detailed accounts of his command actions during the Civil War. A Merge / Redirect to 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry would at least be consistent with WP:PRESERVE. All of the commanders of the platoon are notable and Zesch in particular. He commanded a unit of 1848er veterans who fought for the free German States and then during some of the earliest and most important battles of the Civil War on up to Vicksburg. He commanded 6 companies in the Louisiana bayou on a raid. His unit was presented a flag by the lady Turners of Leavenworth. It is part of the state historical society's collection. How do I know all of this? Various reliable sources. The idea that there isn't substantial coverage of this fellow is absurd especially considering not every source is readily available online for events that took place 160 some odd years ago. The article has been greatly expanded with many additional sources since the initial delete votes. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I beg you - read through WP:NSOLDIER before you create any more articles about military personnel. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." And indeed he satisfies other parts of the policy page as well. First company organized from his area. Important role in significant battles. Etc. Etc. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which of the 8 criteria you think he meets. Never mind, consensus will decide. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason to not WP:AGF with the offline sources, which show a clear pass of WP:GNG. This is a worthwhile stub article that could grow as researchers find more information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * you have said the same about another FloridaArmy creation currently at AfD. What offline sources? - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me, I'm assuming good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well... that's... something. "Assume Good Faith" isn't some sort of blind suicide pact. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF isn't a lawn mower or a chocolate shake either. WP:AGF "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." and since I see no reason to think otherwise, I will... assume good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying that "the offline sources... show a clear pass of WP:GNG" is a bit daft when you haven't seen them and don't even know that they exist. Never mind eh. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I had read them, I wouldn't have to "assume" anything. I see no reason to believe that the contributor to the article has not read them and that they do not support the article.  Therefore... I "assume" "good" "faith" -- Assuming good faith in sources requires having not read them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong here, Paul, and if you are going to persist in using such logic at AfD, as you have done recently, then a topic ban might be in order. AGF is not a suicide pact and your logic opens the floodgates for disruptive editing etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient notability to pass WP:SOLDIER. Platoon commanders are not presumed notable, and I could source every captain in the First AIF better than this from the AIF database. Not impressed by the fact that fn 1 does not cover the cited fact.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Needless to say there were no databases during the American Civil War, although catalogs of the deployments have since been compiled by historians. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Or during the Great War.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was not a platoon commander (led by a Lieutenant) but a Company Commander. And his unit was composed of German immigrants including veterans of the 1848 revolutions. And there's actually quite a lot about Zesch including specifics on his combat roles as a commander. This new article has been greatly expanded and new sources added since the original nomination. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, I can appreciate how frustrating this must be for you but the guidelines are clear. Failing to meet the WP:NSOLDIER guideline is bad enough, but the failure to meet the General Notability Guideline is the clincher. You can't gather lots and lots of trivial mentions and hope they add up to something. It just won't work. The sort of depth required would be an in-depth profile of him - not just a collection of run-of-the-mill stuff. There's nothing to support a stand-alone article & I'm concerned that your energies are going to waste. Have you considered adding a paragraph about him to the article of his parent regiment? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I will point out that WP:NSOLDIER is a guideline, not a rule or a policy. Sometimes guidelines are wrong, and they don't supercede or negate larger/broader guidelines or rules such as WP:GNG (a guideline in this case).  I believe inclusion of this little article makes Wikipedia better so I'd like to add to my reasoning the policy ignore all rules.  While we don't just "throw that one around" in general, I've no problem applying it here because of the off-line research mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient depth of coverage to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 08:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or maybe Redirect to 1st Kansas - Looking at results on newspapers.com as well as the article itself, I don't see enough to make this encyclopedic. For instance, the birth year, death date, and muster dates are based, I think, on primary sources (although here is a burial permit ref). However, Zesch was the senior captain of the regiment and said to be one of the most senior captains in the volunteer army at the end of the war (not sure this is true, as he It seems he wasn't in the army at the end of the war). His was also reported to be the first company organized of the 1st Kansas and, as the Steuben Guards, the first company ready for service in Kansas. I think some of the effort that has gone into this article could have gone into the article on the 1st Kansas, which is basically a reprint of Dyers Compendium. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would deletion be approproate before redirecting? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Does Newspapers.com include German language media? As a Turnverein, coverage of his early life and role in the revolutions of 1849 would not have been covered in U.S. media. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And an unfortunate fact for foreing names is they are often misspelled. So I have seen him listed as Gustovus. Zish or Zisch. And his burial marker appears to go with Gustav. But even with the problems and his European origin we know a great deal about his milotary career and company. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear, I meant weak delete or redirect. Newspaper.com does index some German language papers, but all of those are American ones (they are largely from Illinois or Missouri, in my experience). They are usually (always?) written in blackletter, so the OCR is iffy. I used variations on the name that I could think of in my searches, but thanks for pointing that out. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:47, 21 May 2018 (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.