Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leopold Katzenstein


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Leopold Katzenstein

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

This person doesn't appear to have sources other than an obituary. Fails the notability requirements and WP:NOTMEMORIAL Jay32183 (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Reluctant Delete Looks like there's something there and the obit, which is a full NYT obit and not a paid-for one (as I understand it), seems to assert notability. But ProQuest can find no other significant coverage of the figure. His wife has a much smaller obit where he's mentioned, and he appears in listings of real estate transactions, but nothing about his life and work so he's unlikely to be notable by our criteria. Which is a shame, really. He looks interesting. JRP (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A full nyt obit is proof of notability by itself. But I added a second reference. Very little in Proquest goes back to his period of activity.  DGG (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is an obituary proof of notability? If the only sources are obituaries then WP:NOTMEMORIAL isn't met. Even with the two sources, I don't see significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way does WP:NOTMEMORIAL preclude the use of an obituary to establish notability? It's significant coverage in an independent reliable source, demonstrating that that one of the world's major newspapers considers the subject notable enough for them to publish an article about his life. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it was published by the New York Times does not mean it is significant coverage. There isn't significant coverage. Also, since an obituary is itself a memorial, a memorial is the only article that could result from obituaries being the only sources. We don't actually have any biographical information to write an article, we have a memorial to write another memorial. Half the article is just a duplication of the obituary. Jay32183 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The two obits are significant coverage, and provide enough biographical information.John Z (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've deleted the the copied obituary from the article. It's a bad idea to literally copy linked material even if it's out of copyright. This discussion has not addressed several important points:
 * 1) Newspapers carry two different type of obits; the type written and sent in by family that mourn the loss of their friend and relative and staff-written texts by journalists (often in advance) for people the newspaper deems notable. This article mentions the man's career and says nothing about how fantastic he was or how much they mourn his loss. Nothing that violates the WP:MEMORIAL rules. In fact, if you didn't know what the sources were that rule wouldn't even have crossed your mind.
 * 2) It's an old source. Newspaper articles of that age are hard to find and older ones (at least from NYT) tend not to be free, so finding other sources written during his life is for people with special access. (We have a page where you can request articles of hard to get sources)
 * 3) The current lack of sources isn't a direct reason for deletion. First a significant attempt should be made to find more of them, an action I didn't see from the nominator.
 * 4) If any of the organizations he was a member of had him as an elected member, he'd clearly pass notability guidelines. Who tried looking into it?

I have no access to specialist databases until Monday, so I'll withhold my own 'vote' until I had the chance to look into this. -- Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have access to the NYT archives. Katzenstein is described as head of his own company, located in West Street, NY, and "an inventor and manufacturer of attachments for steam engines" for over 45 years, many of which were "used by ocean steamers all over the world." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC) (I realise now that this was in the text that is now in the history.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the material Mgm deleted., I think its not right to delete the bulk of an article this way while it is being reviewed for afd. If it's copyvio, of course it would be justified & indeed required, but it is PD. Ideally Itoo would prefer that it be perhaps as a footnote, or divided appropriately, but it is well established that we can use entire PD sources in articles--even as the entire content of articles--if we attribute them properly to avoid plagiarism. As incidental points. The NYT and most responsible papers make a distinction between paid death notices and obits. This is an editorially prepared obit. Every single person with such an obit in the NT not only can, but should, should have a Wikipedia article. Once we've established that, as here, the proper close is a speedy keep. Other reference sources are nice, but unnnecessary.  DGG (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter who published the material if there is not significant coverage. Even if the obituary is not written by family, it is still a memorial. That's what an obituary is, it does not matter who wrote it. Obituaries are published for no reason other than to honor the dead. We don't have to find contemporary sources, this guy died long enough ago that if he actually had historical significance, modern scholars would write about him. Jay32183 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, since "notability isn't temporary" we wouldn't have to find modern sources, but if he was commonly written about in his lifetime as a notable inventor, he'd still be notable now per our guidelines. But, other than this obit, I don't find significant mention in historical sources I have access to, so the matter is moot. JRP (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers obit. By the way, all of the NYT archives outside of (about) 1921-1981 are freely accessible.  Obits are generally considered satisfactory sources here and not memorials.  The main considerations are selectivity (the NYT is better than a local pennysaver),  reliability and length (significance, substantiality)  the second isn't in question and these two sources, especially the second, are both reasonably long, not just a sentence or two.John Z (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been saying these sources are not significant the whole time, they do not contain enough information to warrant a stand alone article nor is there relevant place to merge. Obituaries are not acceptable for establishing notability even though they can be acceptable sources for a subject whose notability has already been established, that's why I keep bringing up WP:MEMORIAL. Jay32183 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that judging by past afd discussions, obituaries have been considered satisfactory sources, not memorials, and acceptable for establishing notability by most editors. The obits contain enough info to write a nontrivial article - that's simply a matter of fact - they're both PD and we could copy them whole even.John Z (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We could legally copy them completely, but this isn't Wikisource. They most certainly do not have enough information to write a non-trivial article. The article would be just a lead section, that's not enough. Jay32183 (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google book search and Google scholar, including this source, I think go a long way to establish his notability. I also note that several patents he applied for, apparently individually, can be found on the Google scholar search. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good source. Can't argue with that. Jay32183 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why did you persistently argue with it above? That source was put in the article in the day it was nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's still no significant coverage. I still support the deletion of the article. Jay32183 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just realise that I didn't give a bolded "keep" above, and as it seems that most AfDs, despite protestations to contrary, are closed on the basis of voting rather than strength of argument, I want to make my position clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources and discussion above. When an obit details the accomplishments made by the person, it's more than a memorial. StarM  01:21, 1 April 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.