Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (4th 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   speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The subject of the article did nothing to warrant an article. Being a colonel and having gotten killed before a war officially began is not significant enough. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: User:Gerbelzodude99 has now been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Torkmann.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All three nominations were by the same person, who is now banned from Wikipedia for the three nominations, each as a sockpuppet, and other disruptive AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW, this is the 4th RFD for this article, and it's unlikely that it will be resolved any differently from the other three.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think enough time has passed. Thank you, and I did my research on this one.  Let's stop using SNOW to stop all discussion and see how this plays out.  Merry Christmas! Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep For other disruptive nominations of my articles by Gerbelzodude99 see: Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery and Articles for deletion/Eversharp. I think he is lashing out because I caught him commenting at an AFD without actually looking at the article. If he had read the article, at ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery he would noticed that the New York Times was not the sole reference in the article, instead he repeated the error of the previous voters stating that it was. See here where he says "I have a feeling the author of this (and other New York Times-based articles) sits in a room full of century-old pulp newspapers and sketches out stub articles based on the contents thereof. I don't know if this is politically correct, but perhaps the author of these stubs suffers from autism or Asperger syndrome? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh... I'm really concerned that this article is going to be a permanent keep merely because it keeps getting nominated by people with a record of frivolous AfD-nominations. I just want to stress that although it has the superficial look and feel of a being about a relevant encyclopedic topic, the image pretty much falls apart upon any closer inspection of the references. The major problem is that none have any trace of synthesis, analysis or secondary treatment beyond mere summaries of primary sources, and certainly anything that confirms genuine notability. The lack of descriptions of anything remotely interesting beyond a slavish listing of offspring, relatives and military assignments just doesn't strike me as being relevant Wikipedia content. Peter Isotalo 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have a sneaking suspicion that User:Drawn Some and User:Gerbelzodude99 and User:Torkmann are the same person. Of all the articles in Wikipedia and of all the articles I started, why would three people be drawn to this same article over and over? All three accounts exist only to nominate articles for deletion, and all three concentrate on articles that I write. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand: 1. Why someone would want to write an article on this person, 2. Why someone would bother to nominate it for deletion. However since he seems to have been fairly important and documented in published, reliable sources we might as well keep him. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is impeccably sourced to many reliable sources, thus meeting WP:V. WP:N is certainly met given the coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and being a high-level officer who commanded a military installation of some importance is certainly a credible claim to notability. Although this was a bad-faith nomination, I don't think the AfD meets any of the criteria at WP:SK. That said, this discussion is somewhat premature; the third AfD was closed as "no consensus" under two months ago, and the second AfD was closed the same way one month before that. During that time, there have not been major changes to the article, so I think it's unreasonable to expect a consensus to emerge this time around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep another bad faith nom. There is one delete !vote by a non-banned user, otherwise I'd request somebody to close as speedy keep.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Really?! Another AFD, just delete it.  I have yet to see anything that would make this dude pass WP:GNG   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 13:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the same person nominating under different names each time to be disruptive. And, btw, he meets every requirement of WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All I see is trivial coverage, nothing significant.    TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If fulfills all requirements except the first one, significant coverage, which is the only one that really matters in terms of notability. The rest is just more specific application of WP:N. None of those sources describe Cronman in any detail. Compare with the example given in the note at WP:GNG, and keep in mind that it's referring to something as minor as a news article. Cronman gets roughly the same amount of textual coverage in considerably longer academic articles and full-length books. Peter Isotalo 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 10 facts from 10 sources is the exact same depth of coverage as 10 facts from 1 source. Mathematically there is no difference. He appears in Finnish history books, English history books, and Swedish and German books. While other people in Wikipedia will have 100 facts and others 1,000 and 10,000 facts known about them, he meets Wikipedia's requirement for an entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not conferred by "being in books". That's what the "Three Blind Mice"-example is trying to say. It would qualify millions of living and deceased ppl, and untold numbers of installations, objects, groupings, phrases and whathaveyou, for their own perpetually stubby articles. We're talking about stuff that would probably make even staunch inclusionists suspicious. If you want this to actually be about following guidleines I suggest lobbying for a change of the wording in WP:GNG. Peter Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means, delete! Stop being paranoid, Richard.  Also stop making accusations with NO proof.  The article keeps getting nominated for deletion because the article needs to go, bro.  Mr. Richard, stop being a WP:DICK about it.  Torkmann (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE User:Torkmann has been indef-blocked for abusively used one or more accounts.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again using math: The odds of three random people nominating the same random article is 3 million cubed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I started a SPI [here because of some weird similarities between three users that have nominated this article for deletion. [[User:TheWeakWilled| TheWeak Willed  ]] (T * G) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sock allegations above are irrelevant. This article is problematic because the subject is not notable in the general sense. This would all seem to be about a pattern of article creation to lower the bar of inclusion in the direction of "every person who ever lived". Jack Merridew 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt you can come up with 16 references for each person on Earth, I don't have any in GNews or GBooks. You might get one fact from a telephone book, or 5 facts from a person in a funeral notice, but they would not have a claim to notability. 16 references for someone from 300 years ago is pretty well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. 4 AFDs in just over 90 days is ridiculous and disruptive; no reasons for deletion soundly based in policy; and peculiar indicators of hounding an editor. We should have better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and mark the sock puppet AFDs on this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some


 * Keep on the merits. Commander of an important military base. Keep also on the grounds that 2 previous attempts have found no consensus to delete, and an earlier delete decision was reversed at deletion review. I think it is finally cleafr enough that there is no sufficient consensus to delete the article nor is there likely to be, so keep is the way to settle  this.     DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Riga is the "important military base" in this context. Dünamünde was an outlying fortification which no one has been able to secure much info on. If you want to extend notability from minor military installations to all of its commanders, regardless of their achievments, than at least stick to that argument instead of inflating the importance of minor details. Peter Isotalo 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I said important; Riga was no doubt more important, but notability does not limit itself to that. I think the key thing we look for is in fact an independent command substantial enough to be of some historical note. Anyway, another ed. seems to have mentioned just below the article on the place, which perhaps justifies "very important" --and I see the Latvian Wikipedia article is 3 times larger still, and the Polish & Russian yet longer.    DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Daugavgrīva


 * Keep. Knock it off. A 4th AfD nomination by an account suspected by sock puppetry by itself points toward a keep vote. However, sticking purely to the merits of the article, a commander of a major fort is also notable in his own right, as forts were mostly operated as tactically independent units in this eta. Tomas e (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator has been banned from Wikipedia for this nomination and other disruptive nominations. All the past three nominations for deletion have been from the same person using sock accounts. The first nomination was closed by the administrator using a supervote to negate the two keep votes. Lets have a contest to see who is the first to detect what account name he creates and starts his disruptive edits with next. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep of bad faith nomination by a now indef-blocked sock of an indef-blocked user... in a total abuse of process and guideline. His thumbing his nose at the processes set in place by the community aside, the article is well-sourced and meets precedent and guideline for such historical articles, and notability outside the United States is notability none-the-less.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I can't see what harm this article does and it has been carefully researched. But it gives no indication that he did anything notable at all - and it would be nice to know why on earth he is worth an article. NBeale (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per my prior votes.--Milowent (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The bad-faith nomination makes this a speedy keep, and I ask an uninvolved admin to close it as such since no new arguments for deletion have been brought forward. That being said, I stand by my delete from the last two AfDs – nothing has changed, as far as I can tell, and neither has my opinion. Amalthea  19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Time to close. -- IP69.226.103.13 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP69.226.103.13 (talk • contribs)
 * Speedy Keep Bad faith repeat nomination by blocked sockpuppet of blocked user. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (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.