Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After a mature discussion, there is broad and thoughtful disagreement on the key claims to notability. Skomorokh, barbarian  22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Joachim Cronman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman was closed prior to the expiration of the seven day period when the article was speedy deleted. That decision was considered at deletion review, with the consensus being to relist the article here. As the closer of the deletion review, this nomination is procedural in nature. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  commander of a significantg military installation is notable    DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So my dad, by virtue of being the base commander at one point in his military career is notable? This has to be one of the easiest to disprove attempts to expand notability that I've ever seen.  People like to say Notability is not inherent, while I disagree with that cliche, it is rarely inherented, and in this case not.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was a major battle at that base, and it got mention in newspapers at the time, and published in books, then yes, you'd be obviously notable. Read the articles, don't just glance briefly at them and jump to a conclusion.   D r e a m Focus  12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP is not a genealogy database and the significance of the military installation does not confer notability onto its commander. Otto4711 (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't have the kind of references needed to meet WP:BIO and appears to be a genealogical-type entry Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if being commander of a notable military installation confers notability (which I dispute), none of the sources represent enough information to create a biography of this person. All we have is a geneaology. Basically, we'd be stuck with nothing more than a stub that says, "he existed." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Commander of a major military fortress in a major battle of the Great Northern War in the year 1700, it meets every requirement for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per R.A.Norton. Tomas e (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He was a commander, he participated in major battles, he died in battle. Coverage on the great northern war still lacks alot. This article adds to it, and as such should not be deleted, but instead expanded. Omegastar (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't by any chance borrow the coverage argument from me, did you? How this type of article help anyone to better understand the Great Northern War is a complete mystery to me. The level of detail is so great that it wouldn't even be useful to a historian. Unless someone finds more comprehensive sources, this man remains merely a statistic. Peter Isotalo 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you i was not part of the deletion review of this article nor did i read it through. I did not copy your argument. Now, this might not seem a fair comparison, but to take an example, the american civil war has hundreds of biographies related to it. The Great Northern War is sorely lacking in that area. I think some leeway should be given to historical articles, as the field of history is so enormous that much of it is still not covered in wikipedia. Let this article grow for a while, and see what comes of it. Omegastar (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing of you of plagiarism, I was just pointing out that we appear to be using almost the exact same argument to promote radically different approaches to how to describe a topic for the general readership. Simply repeating yourself doesn't make anything clearer. You're still basically just saying a) similar articles exist and b) people whose historical records can't be expanded beyond a handful of sentences based on primary sources are somehow helpful in understanding the big picture. The former can never be argued with since it's a "oh, yes it is"-argument and the latter is in my opinion confusing accurate and wide coverage with a myopic level of detail.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, dying in battle is not a claim to significance/importance. 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.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Per the article we know that he was a colonel for 20+ years, but that still doesn't tell us anything.  Being a colonel does not make one notable nore does being a commander of an installation.  The only way that I would accept being the commander of an installation would be if you could demonstrate the said installation was THE installation.  There are only a few military installations/positions that warrant defacto articles---Commandant of Westpoint/Anapolis/Air Force Academy, Commander in Chief of one of the armed forces or major regions CINPAC for example.  Being the base commander or regimental commander does not make one notable.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (sorry if my typing is off at all, but my head is throbbing and I am ridiculously congested...). Anyway, a commander in a major conflict verified in sources has legitimate encyclopedic value.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Omegastar as a notable military commander. It has plenty of good sources.  Stubs are perfectly acceptable per WP:STUB. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial mentions don't make this dude notable.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A more or less identical article on a certain Anders Örbom was deleted only days ago, and this seems to be an even more clear-cut case for deletion. WP:MILHIST doesn't appear to agree at all that any military commander of any notable military installation deserves a separate article. WP:N quite clearly specifies that "[s]ignificant coverage" is needed and that it should be "more than a trivial mention". Most importantly, there appears to be no relevant secondary source coverage whatsoever, which is probably the most reliable measurements of notability. Peter Isotalo 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any primary sources, can you point them out. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sparwenfeld and Lewenhaupt are primary sources as they are written by contemporaries and/or eyewitnesses. They might be published in edited and translated editions, perhaps even commented, but I see absolutely no secondary treatment, and certainly none that is relevant to Cronman other than in an off-hand way. Låstbom and von Stryk are only technically secondary sources, but what they do is merely to repeat primary source information. They don't comment on it and they attempt neither synthesis nor analysis. The rest, as we already know, is pure geneaology; who begat whom and other things that don't establish any kind of notability for Cronman. Peter Isotalo 06:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cronman's appearances in the Sparwenfeld diary are not used as a source in the article. The editor's paragraph detailing who Joachim Cronman is to the reader is used as the source. Lewenhaupt is a secondary source, whatever documents or letters or interviews he used to compile his biographies would have been the primary sources. Wikipedia doesn't ban primary sources, it just reminds the editor to use caution. It would be possible to incorrectly identify a Cronman mentioned in a letter or a diary or in the census, if you were not careful. I must remind you that you argued "For example Jon Stålhammar is well-known by Swedish historians for his detailed accounts of his life and the letters to his wife" arguing the opposite, that primary documents make this man notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Sparwenfeld isn't the source, he shouldn't be cited as one. And if so, how is the relevance from the translator/editor relevant? And if you seriously want to describe Lewenhaupt as a secondary source, you're going to have to game every possible definition of what defines a secondary source. You can't compare an almost threehundred-year-old source with modern day historical treatment. But all of this is really just irrelevant nitpicking when you're avoiding the crucial issue: every single source you've cited refers to Cronman in no significant manner. The sources themselves indicatethat, but more importantly, all the biographical information about Cronman himself is only a few sentences. If there was actually more info on him, and he was notable, you should've been able to compile more than a stub by now.
 * And please don't try to use my argument about Stålhammar on this case. Jon Stålhammar is notable because historians have actually used the letters he wroteas sources in their research, and there has been at least one popular historical book written about the family. There's no such thing as notability due to the mere existence of primary sources and I have never claimed that there is.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Theres a difference in that Anders Örbom was not a commander. This man was much more notable then anders örbom. Omegastar (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that this really has anything whatsoever to do with the complete lack of secondary source coverage, but this can be answered just as easily. See the link to WP:MILHIST for what the project seems to think about notability. Even as a commander Cronman isn't considered notable enough and he explicitly fails several other suggested criteria, most of which are merely derived from WP:N. Saying that he's (possibly) more notable than Örbom proves nothing except that he's more notable than someone who was even less notable. That he was slightly higher in rank and had slightly more famous offspring doesn't make him more relevant to Wikipedia. All that you're claiming here amounts to highly personal opinions without support in policy, historiograhpic practice or even a semblance of common sense.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the deletion of Anders Örbom appearing in the record of WikiProject Sweden's project alerts, so I assume he wasn't tagged for that project. I don't see how a recent deletion of an article which probably wasn't properly tagged can be used as a precedence. As a courtesy, please let relevant projects know about AfDs of relevance to them by using project tags! Tomas e (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy Delete this indivdiual makes no claims to significance/importance, let alone notability. Having died in a war does not make one notable.  Being a colonel does not make one notable.  The sources are all trivial mentions (not about the subject) and mostly geneologies.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions: Has input been requested from Wikiproject Sweden?  I see 8 books listed in a English Google book search, and 6 of them appear to be Swedish.  Perhaps more might be available on the Swedish version of Goggle.... or whatever search engine they primarily use...?  But input from those able to access Swedish historical or educational archives and/or read the Swedish language might go far to more accurately assess notability. That the article requires expansion on the individual and his role in the battle and at the fortress, makes it difficult to say either easy keep or easy delete unless the best efforts can be made to ascertain just how notable this individual is to Sweden and to Swedish history. Anybody at WP:CSB care to do some digging? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia depopulates Wikiprojects are being abandoned. I have about a dozen unanswered technical questions about templates and SVGs that have gone unanswered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is more that the only books indexed by Google are those that just happened to be at US Universities when they were scanned. Google hasn't scanned any books in Sweden, they just picked up what few books Harvard and other Universities happened to have in Swedish. It is another example of regional bias in Wikipedia and at Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which still begs the question. Has anyone actively searched Swedish historical or educational archives, or are some decisions to delete based only upon the few sources available through english google... being then being based upon WP:UNKNOWNHERE? If a common sense assumption can be made that a figure from Swedish military history might be notable in Sweden and logically be covered in Swedish historical & education archives, then that same commonsense would suggest bringing in persons from the various Projects who may be able to assist... and this might mean something more pro-active than simply listing it at the project's deletion notices. Contacting the authors of similar articles on Swedish history or Swedish historical figures figures might be prudent. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As he was from what is now Estonia and died in a battle in what is now Latvia, Sweden would not be the only place's print sources to be checked. Google books turns up Finnish sources, too, under the name "Joakim Cronman". Does anybody know what the Cyrillic form of the name would be?--Paularblaster (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Finnish book talks more about Cronman communicating with the King of Sweden, but I don't have access beyond what Google Books has in their snippet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep . Regimental colonel and commander of a major fortress is just the sort of person that would have received international press coverage at the time, especially as he died in battle. I wrote my doctorate about newspapers in the period 1620-1660, and I'd be happy to bet that if anybody digs out the newspapers of 1683, 1700 and 1703 (unfortunately not available on gnews) they'll find enough coverage to satisfy them. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Editing to add: since the sources cited don't actually make him commander (in the one case) or present at battle (in the other), this is coming close to looking like a very convincing hoax, but one that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until the new sources brought forward have been checked. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that we treat 18th century newspaper articles as any kind of secondary source material? This seems like a way to bend WP:RS to the point of breaking. Peter Isotalo 07:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Can you actually give any reason not to, beyond knee-jerk chronocism? --Paularblaster (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The gaping abyss that separates these writings from modern-day journalism is what bothers me. You don't have to resort to any "chronocism" to be concerned about people interpreting threehundred-year-old sources to their own liking. I think it's especially problematic if they would be used to assert the notability of essentially genealogical articles. Somewhere along the line we seem to have gone from just trying to write summaries of general history to doing our own research. Peter Isotalo 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would presumably be the gaping abyss between a time when newspapers had to sell to a fairly limited number of serious people week after week, without subsidy from advertisers, and the time when they made their money by entertaining rather than informing. My own experience is that journalistic coverage then was easily as reliable (and unreliable) as it is now. Nobody would have to "interpret" anything: go and see if there's coverage of him. If there is, he's notable; if not, then not. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say to this. It's really difficult to take a comparison between the limited publications in an early modern fiscal military absolutist monarchy and the press of modern democracies seriously. I'm sure there are the occasional factoids or colorful quotes that could be useful in some cases, but building an article on it is just not serious. My default opinion is that anyone trying to use these types of sources on Wikipedia would be engaging in original research. Peter Isotalo 16:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "occasional factoids or colorful quotes" are more in the line of modern newspapers. Publishers 300 years ago had to deal with paper and printing skills being at a premium, as well as a shortage of advertising revenue, and, yes, a government that could come down heavy if they thought people were being uppity - as a result, newspapers tended to give bare summaries of factual information, the main distortions being failure to report things that might get them into trouble, or the reporting of dubious outcomes as outright victories (both things that can be found in 20th-century newspapers - but perhaps you only accept 21st-century newspapers?). They sometimes got things wrong (again, modern newspapers do too), but if they mention a person you can rest assured that he or she was notable. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What you're forgetting is that increased temporal distance requires more specific contextual knowledge. Merely understanding all the terminology, literary allusions, etc. requires good overall knowledge of the period and usually some experience with these types of writings. There are endless possibilities for misunderstanding without secondary treatment. Modern news sources are overall infinitely more transparent to modern readers even if they aren't perfect, and they also have completely different standards of factual accuracy. And you are, of course, making a circular argument concerning notability. Early modern newspapers certainly discuss a lof of non-notable things and all people mentioned in them are not per se notable. And just to remind ourselves and everyone reading this, we're still discussing purely speculative sources that no one has seen or read about. Peter Isotalo 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (userfication if necessary) though if further sources show up proving his notability, we can recreate; but it's got to be better than the geneology at the moment. Buckshot06(prof) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He was mentioned in that 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.   D r e a m Focus  12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He was mentioned in geneologies... the sources provided are geneologies of notable individuals. His father was a member of the nobility, his father's children would warrant mention in his father's article.  But the fact that he is the son of somebody notable, who was later a colonel, is NOT a claim of notability or significance.  So far we have yet to see a source make more than a mention of him---and those are geneologies.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability, just a commander of a base during a battle, all historically minor. The battle itself doesn't even have an article. Also, this is really just a genealogy listing which fails WP:NOTDIR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Arguments over whether the position of commander (at the dawn of the 18th century in scandanavia, about which we are all experts) is a big deal or not frankly means nothing to me. Earlier this month, there was endless debate over whether WWII vet Thomas A. Edson was important because he won a Silver Star, but the deletion decision (I !voted delete) came down to a lack of any sources to show notability.  Here we appear to have sources that support notability, and actually multiple sources that are quite old, in a time period where they didn't waste time writing about pop culture fluff like Bikini Baristas (a subject sure to soon have an article here which will easily meet the notability bar).  In my opinion, inclusion or deletion of this article shouldn't rise or fall on a subjective opinion that Swedish sources aren't quite good enough (oh but would be if they wrote some amount more), or because the editors who contributed to this article used a geneological format to convey information, unless a professor of swedish history comes in here and tells us this dude was weak sauce. --Milowent (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the sources? The sources amount to nothing more than geneologies showing that this person did in fact exist.  They essentially boil down to so-and-so was a colonel who was born in XXXX as the son of Y and father of Z.  The sources are trivial in coverage.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article makes credible claims of notability and provides ample sources to establish meeting WP:N. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete According to the article, the only facts about his life are "Joachim Cronman (1638-1703) was a Colonel and the Commandant of the Neumünde fortress where he died on March 5, 1703 during the Battle of Neumünde of the Great Northern War." The same could mostly be said about thousands of others.  The fact that he was the Colonel doesn't really make that much difference.  The rest of the article is just a geneology.  The article fails to assert any real significance, and therefore would probably fall within the realms of CSD#A7.  This makes the question of notability fairly clean cut. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is the first sentence of the article, but the article continues. Marriage and children and regiments he commanded. Every biography has info on marriage and children, if it didn't it would be incomplete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that there are "thousands of others" that were the Commandant of the Neumünde fort? That certainly is not true. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An alternative to delete could possible be redirect to Battle of Neumünde, but that in itself is a redirect to Daugavgrīva, which doesn't even mention Joachim Cronman. If the battle isn't notable enough to have an article, then the Colonel who is only known because of the battle probably isn't either.  &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: why don't you go to the library, dig out some books about the Great Northern War, and write decent articles about the Battle of Narva (during which Cronman was apparently commander of the Narva fortress, one of the most famous fortifications in Europe) and the Battle of Neumünde (just outside Riga, now the national capital of Latvia), and then come back and redirect to them? (Editing to add:) the Russians fighting the Swedes for control of Riga is not exactly non-notable; saying we don't have an article on it says more about wikipedia than it does about the notability of the battle. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a colonel and commander, participation in battles, and dying in one is quite simply not enough for encyclopedic notability – in my opinion, in the apparent consensus opinion at WP:MILMOS, and in the opinion of WP:N (lacks the required significant coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources; and yes, I apply that to a biography from the 17th century as well). Amalthea  14:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It certainly meets that standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is he discussed in detail? Not in the linked citations. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Detail is defined next as "no original research is needed to extract the content", that is how much detail is required. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you been to a library and consulted the histories of Swedish Livonia and the Great Northern War to reach that conclusion? Until you have, you're just saying "if it's not on google I don't want to know, and I don't think anybody else should either". --Paularblaster (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and I'm not saying that at all. I'm looking at both what search engines tell me and what's in the article, and neither is enough for encyclopedia noteworthiness, in my opinion. Amalthea  15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not for a paper encyclopedia, I'll grant you - unless, of course, it was a specialist encyclopedia. But with wikipedia not being paper, and aiming for the "sum of human knowledge", we surely have room for somebody covered in multiple third-party sources over a number of centuries and in a variety of languages? --Paularblaster (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. If that person really has significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. Otherwise he is not notable enough for inclusion.  On Wikipedia, the general rule of thumb is that the subject of an article is assumed non-notable (after a sufficient time has passed for material to be added) unless proved otherwise.  We can't just keep an article on the off-chance that there might possibly be some source that asserts notability about him which is conveniently unknown to everyone participating.  I believe that there are a sufficient number of people wanting to keep the article that, if there were any sources that assert notability, they would have been added by now.  There isn't even any suggestion in the article that the subject is notable, let alone any sources suggesting it.  Maybe there should be an article about the battle/war, but not about this Colonel (see WP:BIO1E). &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinions of editors seems to be equally divided as to whether a Commander in Sweden in the late 1600s is already sufficiently established by the existing references. Rules of thumb are good, but we are here for consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem seems that not even the rather meager references you have provided seem to support what is currently being said the article (and in extension the two Neumünde articles). I have now looked at all the relevant references in the article, and actually taken the time to trace the citations they have used. Birgegård (the translator and editor of Sparwenfelts diary) mentions no more than is visible in the Google Books snippet, where she clearly cites Elgenstierna II 1926, p. 100. The only other info is that Sparwenfelt stays at a manor leased by a Cronman (though there is actually no info about which Cronman). Elgenstierna in turn is a standard geneaology which cites Lewenhaupt, which is already in the article. Lewenhaupt in turn has basically the same facts, and cites Anrep and army payroll records. Anrep adds nothing which isn't reported in the other sources. All these sources basically state the exact same facts (three assignments as an officer, date of death, spouses, children), but none of these very relevant facts:
 * A birth date. None of the sources seem to mention one, not even an guesstimate.
 * Participation in any battles whatsoever, neither Narva nor Neumünde.
 * A death in battle. Lewenhaupt only writes d. 5/3 1703 i Neumünde, which means he died in Neumünde, but not in battle. The term used by Lewenhaupt for those who did is stupade ("fell"). Other entries which read d. are sometimes specified with things like i pesten ("in the plague"), but not always. That means Cronman could have died of any number of diseases, drowning, falling off his hourse or just passing away from old age (the man was after all probably in his 60s).
 * Any mention of a battle in Neumünde (Dünamünde) at all. I know from other sources that it changed hands several times, but none of the sources say anything about the Russians taking it in 1703. They do appear to have captured it in 1710, though, after Poltava.
 * Any mention of Neumünde as a "fort" or "fortress", and certainly not a major one. This is also fairly evident from the term used by Birgegård, which is "fortlet". This is her translation of the Swedish skans, which is a term for a fortification but not necessarily anything major.
 * Cronman's notability according to you and pretty much all those voting to keep seems to depend almost entirely on these facts; participation in two major battles, command of a major/significant fortification, death on the battlefield. Since I've now actually taken that time and done the homework despite some rather sloppy referencing, I'd really like to know where all these claims come from. Peter Isotalo 11:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, thats a very good and commendable load of research you've done there. I notice that someone has put a  tag up, although I don't think that's appropriate when the notability is in dispute.  Either way, I'm also putting up a "factual accuracy disputed" tag to reflect your findings. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed that there seems to be no place of birth for Cronman. It might be in some of the English-language sources, but then it would still need proper citation. Peter Isotalo 16:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Verification of the facts definately seems to be a huge problem with this article. Notability issues aside, its quite fundamental that you can't have an article when there's nothing verifiable you can say about the subject.  Unless a proper source of information (of any reliable type) can be found, I fail to see how this article is salvageable. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Royal Library in Sweden wrote back: "Joachim Cronman has a paragraph in "Historisk tidskrift för Finland" and "Kungl. fortifikationens historia" vol 6:2. ... You should also contact The Military Archives (Krigsarkivet) for more information." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what this is supposed to prove. It certainly doesn't explain where all the unsupported facts came from. Peter Isotalo 18:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It proves there are more print sources that might demonstrate notability - indeed, their very existence might prove notability since the existence of third-party sources is effectively our criterium for whether a subject is notable. Of course, it would be useful if we had a reference that would enable them to be checked as to whether these are mere mentions or substantive coverage (what issue/date of Historisk tidskrift för Finland, for example). --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, Once the claim that he died in battle has been debunked, it seems that there is no claim of notability anymore. Entire text on this article at the time I am typing this is "Joachim Cronman (dead 1703) was a Colonel and the Commandant of the Neumünde fortress where he died on March 5, 1703." There should be no bar to recreating this article if sources are brought forward at a later date. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dying in battle is not a claim to fame. His notability is as Commander of Neumünde. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, no claim to notability. Commanding a fort is routine. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a "fortlet" according to the sources we have. The rest is so far just Richards assumptions. Peter Isotalo 07:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Commanding two forts in Livonia (first the famous Narva, and then the fort between Riga and the sea) during Peter the Great's conquest of Livonia is perhaps more notable than "commanding a fort" full stop? --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a fair-use photograph of the fort on Latvian wikipedia. It looks to be much the same size as the castle at Cape Town, one of the most notable fortifications in the history of the world. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a fort near Cape Town? Abductive  (reasoning) 09:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Paul is referring to the Castle of Good Hope. But he's also making a lot of unfounded assumptions. There is nothing in the article or the sources about Cronman being commandant at Narva. What it does say is that he was assigned to it as colonel of a Scanian garrison regiment. I don't know if that is a de facto assignment as fort commander, but I'm not going to try to guess either. Even if it was, it's more than 20 years before Peter the Great made any move on Livonia. And while it seems reasonable to assume that the structure in the picture is the same that existed before 1703, it would be nice to have something backing it up.
 * I should add that there are discrepancies between Lewenhaupt and Elgenstierna on the one hand and Anrep on the other concerning Cronman's death. The former two, who both cite the latter as their source on this fact, claim that he died in Neumünde but Anrep doesn't actually say that. He only says he was commandant and that he died in 1703. Lewenhaupt does use army payrolls as additional sources, which could explain why he has more accurate info. However, none of the writers say anything about when Cronman was Commandant. Neumünde is listed after the assignment to the Savolax and Nyslott regiments, but that only really tells us that it was after 1685, and war didn't break out until fifteen years later. What's making me believe that all of this is just pure speculation is that there is no mention of Cronman participating in any battles whatsoever, especially in a source like Lewenhaupt, which is specifically about Charles XII's army officers. If he was actually commandant of Neumünde when the war broke out, it's rather odd that there is no mention of his participating in the 1700 action when Saxon troops captured the fort and in 1701 when the Swedes recaptured it (according to Nordisk familjebok). Peter Isotalo 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no facts of military notability are presented. Mukadderat (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. IMHO, the delete arguments are stronger than the ones for keep. As there is a distinct lack of direct, detailed coverage of this person in secondary sources, he fails WP:BIO. He also fails the WP:MILMOS notability criteria (though those are only an essay, so their relevance here is perhaps limited. The argument that WP is NOT a genealogy service are also hard to ignore. Yilloslime T C  22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Paularblaster makes a compelling case to keep this article and develop it further as more sources emerge. We are not restricted to use of the internet and there is no pressing reason to delete as this person is long dead. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, but I don't think I do make a compelling case for keeping the article - only a fair case for being disgusted and distrustful of the general prevalence of WP:UNKNOWNHERE in discussions like this. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one voting to delete in this AfD has used that type of argument. Peter Isotalo 21:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you not notice what happened when I did look up offline references? Peter Isotalo 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 30 September 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.