Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Kern


 * 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 Merge to insomnia. Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Kern

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This case of prolonged insomnia has initially been reported by the Austrian Press Agency in 1930 and reporting was apparently revived in 1938. Putting aside certain contradictions in the reporting (I checked an article in the Times of 18 January 1938, which claimed that Kern had suffered injury by the splinter of a grenade), this case was apparently neither scientifically documented at the time nor has it been mentioned in newer secondary literature on the subject of insomnia or the like. Thus the information cannot be attributed to or verified by reliable sources. The media coverage of the case appears all in all to have been only marginal. The Times article I mentioned has meagre 278 words. Other newspapers reprinted the cable by APA and discussed it briefly. To my mind Dale Carnegie mentioning Kern in one of his books and Indie folk-pop band The Dimes, who dedicated a song to him, have contributed most strongly to the memory of Kern, but not significantly enough that Kern should be included in Wikipedia. Assayer (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to insomnia. Worth a couple sentences there, and the references carry -- but that's it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge seems fair, though it pains me because this is the sort of article Wikipedia is so often good for. Nonetheless, I searched for sources too and couldn't produce more than what's already given. I'm seeing it mentioned in several places (National Geographic website for example) but everything appears to come back to these couple older pieces (or otherwise sourced to Wikipedia). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He was the primary topic of the coverage, and it's sufficiently significant to pass WP:GNG. That it was not scientifically verified is not important - the newspapers are sufficiently reliable. That there is little recent coverage is also unimportant, as notability is not temporary. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a biographical article, so WP:BIO applies, and I do not see that Paul Kern meets any of the criteria listed. What is more, the information is scrappy and some basics are contradictory. We do not know, when he was born or when he died. Some sources claim he was shot through the head, others say, he was wounded by a shellburst. That's not enough for a standalone article and does not pass WP:GNG, because original research would be necessary to unearth basic biographical information. Neither do I see enough media coverage to have an article about that coverage. The newspaper reports of 1930 can be traced to an APA cable so that these articles only count as one source.  Just because something has been printed in a newspaper as strange news, does not mean that the content is reliable. At least the Adelaide Register in 1930 remained more skeptical than the WP article quoting the medical superintendent of the Adelaide Hospital: "Frankly, I do not believe the report."--Assayer (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll go with merge as above. The case is interesting, and the amount of coverage provided would normally be enough for GNG. But this is a medical case, so MEDRS should apply, and there is no reliable sourcing from a medical standpoint. Google Scholar found only a popular book, nothing meeting MEDRS. There is plenty of reporting on this case - more is available in addition to what is in the article. But we don't know how much of this reporting is true and how much of it is gullible repetition of a "Believe it or not!" type story (which is how a lot of it reads). --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's sufficiently notable for WP:GNG it should be kept, regardless of WP:MEDRS. The specific notability criteria are intended to broaden inclusivity, not narrow it. Pburka (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2014 (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.