Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalervo Kurkiala


 * 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   keep. The fact is that multiple reliable sources detailing his life exist. To overrule those requires a convincing reason why we should not have the article despite those sources, which is not apparent in this discussion. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kalervo Kurkiala

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG as article only shows that mr. Kurkiala had a few jobs. Nothing that makes him notable. The Banner talk 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable military officer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:The Banner. --rtc (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on the Finnish Wikipedia is a lot longer, and is sourced to a biography in Suomen jääkärien elämäkerrasto. Vejvančický pointed this out back in July 2012.  A quick search turns up a biographical entry on page 172 of Anders Edestam's Karlstads stifts herdaminne från medeltiden till våra dagar: Norra Dals Kontrakt. Södra Dals Kontrakt. Västra Dals Kontrakt, and that isn't even used on the Finnish Wikipedia.  There's an entry in the Scandanavian biographical archive, according to its index at any rate, and various other pieces of information, in both English and Finnish, dotted around the place.  The Finnish Wikipedia article is a fairly good indication that a properly sourced full length biography of this person can be written, and we don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion.  Uncle G (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Easy enough: make sure that the article shows the notability of mr. Kurkiala and I will happily withdraw my nomination. But I will not withdraw a nomination for an article that only "shows potential". The Banner talk 15:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't properly absorbed deletion policy. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles, stub or complete articles, that fail to prove notability are always removed... The Banner talk 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up two concepts here: stubs that fail to prove notability should be removed or challenged by WP:SPEEDY or WP:PROD. Full-fledged articles that fail to prove notability are prime candidates for WP:AfD. You could have tried prod and the article would possibly have been removed. Now it does not fall into either one of those categories. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go left or go right, when non-notable the stub/article will be removed. And I still see an article about a man with a job, not a bit what makes him notable. The Banner talk 14:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus not to use Google snippets, or I'd include this mention. This seems legitimate as well, and there is this snippet (though published by Munin Verlag, tied to HIAG) and he is mentioned in this study. So I'm going to go with keep in line with Uncle G's comments about not deleting stubs with potential. What this needs is a Finnish-speaking editor with better access to publications in the subject's first homeland. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I left a note for the first moderately active Finnish-speaking Wikipedian I could find, here. I have no idea how this user might think about the topic, but it would be helpful to have some linguistic assistance, maybe. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: if there's literature about him, what does it say, other than that he existed? What is he supposed to be notable for? We can't keep an article merely on an abstract expectation that there might be something interesting about him. We need at least an idea about what that interesting thing is going to be. The google snippets Drmies points to above seem to merely mention his name; none of them seems to go into any biographical depth, let alone deal with him as a subject of interest in its own right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, Future Perfect, but as far as I'm concerned, such people (basically, foreign Nazi officers) are inherently notable. (I had a much easier time writing up Paul van Tienen and his ilk.) WP:PERPETRATOR doesn't help me out very much here, and I don't know if there is any consensus on military officers; I assume the GNG should be our guide here, but this group is relatively small and (have) usually receive(d) coverage in their first homeland. I'm not much of an inclusionist, I think, but I would include these as long as the basic facts are established. I doubt that I'll hear from my Finnish editor in time; if this gets to be deleted (and I hope it won't) I'd like to get it userfied. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would foreign Nazi officers be inherently notable? There were thousands of them. If there were some noteworthy war crimes issue or a high-profile criminal prosecution or a notable political role after the war or anything like that, there'd be a case, but surely not for simply serving in the army? Germany and Finland were allies, so his presence in the German forces wasn't even anything particularly surprising. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not fame nor importance, so asking what this person is famous for is asking the wrong question. The right question is whether this person is documented in depth by reliable independent sources.  The answer to that is: Obviously, yes.  One of the sources is the biography used to make Kalervo Kurkiala, which you can see, right there, is a 10KiB article about this person, and a proof by existence that expansion is possible.  That source is Suomen jääkärien elämäkerrasto, mentioned above, which has biographies of (Finnish) members of the 27th Jäger Battalion.  Edestam's Karlstads stifts herdaminne has a biography of every priest in the diocese of Karlstad, which Kurkiala was after WW2. Now if one were looking for factoids rather than substantial biographies that address deletion policy square on &mdash; and I know that Drmies here won't be able to resist a hook &mdash; then one could ask: Did you know &hellip; that Kurkiala's surname was originally Groundstroem?  He Fennicized it in 1927, after serving as a pastor for the Finnish Seamen's Mission in Australia.    And did you know &hellip; that in 1919 he opined that military service was good for "country boys" and that "numerous bookworms and spoilt sloppy idlers" would "get an airing" through field service?   There are quite a lot of pictures on the WWW of this man.     Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. We don't do a biography on some random guy just because we can piece together the basic facts of his biography from some sources that mention him in passing. We don't do a biography on "every priest in the diocese of Karlstad", just because there is some book that has listed them all. We do require that a person has done something special or has played some particularly noteworthy role in some event. Nothing of what you cite indicates that this person has. So, this is a clear delete now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect, I see you have just blocked the creator of the article based on "nazi advocacy". The decision is likely to be challenged. I believe you are far too involved in the case to take part in any vote here. I ask you to strike out your vote above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? This demand is absurd on so many different levels at once I really wouldn't know where to begin responding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a demand, but a polite request. If you fail to understand the motivation, it will degrade the high regard I have for you as an administrator. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I will have to live with that then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given Neogeo's history, this was seen coming a mile away. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ow, Mr. Petri Krohn. Could you please strike out your votes and comments here? As your are a Finnish person, I believe you are far too involved in the case to take part in any vote here. I ask you to strike out your vote above. The Banner talk 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know I'm not a Nazi, or a priest? ;) Anyway, the creator was blocked for all the right reasons; nothing wrong with that or with Future Perfect weighing in here (though they're wrong, of course!). Petri, let this not affect your regard for them. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just noted that I am not totally uninvolved with the topic. I have written about this guy here: fi:Sven Abraham Schartum :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Back when we considered Amazon a reliable source? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – This Nazi source describes Kalervo Kurkiala as "the Father of the Finnish SS battalion". The Finnish article gives some support to this definition. He seems to have been one of the leading Nazis and Nazi propagandists in Finland. There are some problems though. Most of the sources used in the Finnish article are not directly related to his role in the Waffen SS and do not by themselves establish notability. All the 1000+ members of the WW I 27th Jäger Battalion (Finland) have their short biographies printed in the two biography collections (1938 & 1975) of the Jäger movement. The new source presented here focuses on his role as the vicar of a parish in Sweden. These, and the material from Australia bring depth into the potential biography, but most likely are limited in the coverage of the activities he is most notable for. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. – I believe this biography clearly establishes notability:
 * -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Petri Krohn. The 98-page biography does it for me, combined with the mentions by other sources of different aspects of his life in Finland, Australia and Sweden. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that book a reliable source? Was it even cited correctly? Petri Krohn says it was published by "Herättäjä-yhdistys", which apparently is a Christian publishing house google-transl However, I cannot find any reference to this book on their website . But a place where I can find this book is on the website of this Finnish Neo-Nazi publisher: . The alleged ISBN cited above cannot be found anywhere except on the Finnish Wikipedia article and on the Google books entry (which doesn't show anything beyond it). So, which is it? Does this book exist, except on NeoNazi propaganda websites? Do any reputable libraries have it? A 98-page biography published by these Nazi nostalgists would certainly not qualify for us, would it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source. A Google inauthor search for Iivari Rämä shows a number of books on church-related topics with different publishers. Iivari Rämä's book is cited in Jana Fietz's book on Nordische Studenten an der Universität Greifswald in der Zeit von 1815 bis 1933 (Nordic students at the University of Greifswald in the period 1815-1933), also used as a source for the article.  Rämä is interested in a priest who had a very turbulent life.  Incidentally, there is nothing in the article or in the sources that say he was a Nazi, although the name seems to indicate that he was of German origin, and he was clearly right-wing and pro-German.  Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Finnish Wikipedia article Herättäjä-Yhdistys has published Christian literature from 1892. The article on Awakening (religious movement) says Herättäjä-Yhdistys is the umbrella organization of "Awakening". Not a mainstream publisher, but neither a Nazi printing house. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems Aymatth prefers Finnish soldiers to 1960s interior design..♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ernst. I feel the same way. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some subjects where it is best to just draw the curtain and tiptoe away. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Drmies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability must be established in the lead and it is not. If there is a book written about him because he had an interesting, although obscure, life, then the article should be about the book, provided it is notable.  TFD (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, shall I add "is notable for" to every other sentence in the lead? And add that a biography was published about him? That's all in the article. I'm trying to find a sentence in WP:Notability that says notability must be established in the lead, so far unsuccessfully. Mind you, I don't find that other articles meet that requirement of yours--including Willi Schlamm (complete lead: "William S. (Willi) Schlamm (1904-1978) was an Austrian-American journalist"), Kenneth Goff, Gilbert Cooper. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, because I still see just a man with a job. Being a soldier in wartime, a priest or a teacher is, in my humble opinion, not something to make someone notable. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The manual of style says the lead should explain why the topic is notable, and the notability guideline defines what is meant by "notable" in the Wikipedia sense - basically coverage by more than one good source, as with this article. Put together, they could be taken to imply that the lead of all articles should establish notability in the Wikipedia sense: "Vladimir Putin is notable because he has been discussed by the following sources: 1) People Magazine..."  It could be easier to tweak the guidelines than to fix all the existing articles to meet that criterion.  But neither guideline says a topic has to be interesting or unusual to be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Willi Schlamm is notable because he was a prominent Communist in Germany, raised the money for William F. Buckley's National Review and became one of the leaders of the John Birch Society. Kenneth Goff was notable because he was a witness before the Dies Committee and a major influence on Christian Identity.  Gilbert Cooper meets the requirements of notablity because he was a member of the legislative assembly of Bermuda, a mayor of the capital and a knight.  This is mentioned in the lead of all these articles.  TFD (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I cited the unabridged lead for Willi Schlamm. He was an Austrian-American journalist. But this is not a conversation that will bear much fruit, and I'll bow out and leave it to the closing admin who will, no doubt, read beyond the lead if needs be and take into account the many references and the nicely fleshed-out biography. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've read and re-read this article, and I can't find anything notable about this person. The mere fact of being a Nazi doesn't make one notable. No decoration or medal in recognition of some notable deed, no war crimes or even allegations, no post war career of note, nothing more than millions of other veterans of WW2 might have experienced. --Nug (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline does not say there has to be anything unusual about the person, just that several reliable independent sources have written about him. This simple rule avoids a lot of subjective debates.  The subject is assumed to be notable if he has been noted.  In this case, we have a short bio in the "Finnish Jaegers" book, a book-length bio written by Iivari Rämä, and various other books and scholarly papers in Finnish, English, Swedish and German that discuss aspects of the subject's life: soldier, student, seamen's pastor etc.  The cited sources amply demonstrate notability.  Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It only states A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.. It does not say: A person is automatically notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. So even with several biographies he is not automatically notable, that still depends on the quality of the biographies and their independece. I would not regard a biography about a nazi issued by a nazi or extreem right coloured publishing house as reliable... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, the author of the biography has written several books on church-related topics, and the biography is published by a Lutheran organization. The verifiable existence of the biography helps demonstrate notability. If we had online access to it, I would have no problem using it as a source. This biography about a Lutheran pastor issued by a Lutheran publishing house probably has a Lutheran bias. That does not mean it is an unreliable source of facts. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Point is that Fut. Perf casts some doubt about the book in his edit at 9 August 2012 (12:58 UTC), something you and Petri Krohn could not take away in your responses. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fut. Perf noted that the Finnish neo-nazi website includes Iivari Rämä's book in their list of books related to the Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS. That is not surprising.  Kalervo Kurkiala was chaplain to the battalion, and as liason officer may have had significant authority.  Presumably the biography describes his experiences and activites while in that role.  I do not see the relevance to this discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aymatth, apparently the group of Jager volunteers was limited to around 1,100. One of only 1,100, there's some additional special notability for those who need it. Can you add that book reference (unimpeachable: Cambridge UP) to the article in the proper format? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see that as showing notability, but it is useful background so I have added it - plus some from a couple of other sources. I think the article is a bit more coherent now for a reader who knows nothing about the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but we were already convinced of the guy's notability. Above, the idea is proposed a few times that what the man did was run of the mill. Well, it wasn't--only a small group of Finns went over to the Jagers. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not convinced. The main claim to notability is his biography published by Herättäjä-Yhdistys. A biography of a Lutheran pastor published by a company associated with Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. The notability criteria requires sources independent of the subject, this is not the case here. --Nug (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland claims that 78.2% of Finns were members of the Church as of the end of 2010. Would you consider that no Finnish sources are independent, since the subject is Finnish?  Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 78.2% of Finns aren't employed as pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Just because the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland's publishing house contracts a writer to write an biography about one of its former employees, does not mean Kurkiala achieves general notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. --Nug (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a biography that covers the person's life from birth to death. Those facts of his life are verified by reference to reliable sources--books, journal articles. Even if the guy had been one of a million potato farmers, the very fact that we can write his biography in the way in which it was done (thank you Aymatth2) means that he passes the GNG. If he didn't, we wouldn't have this article. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I still see just a man with a job and nothing that makes him in anyway "special" or notable. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:26, 12 August 2012 (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.