Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Jenne


 * 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 Action T4. Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Jenne

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability lacking. Just because someone was the first or last to be killed by the Nazis is not notable. Jabbsworth (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * why not? You did argue really nothing. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  05:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete Comment — the one sentence about this 4 yr old victim can be folded into the article that refers to him. Jabbsworth (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. His death is a tragedy, certainly, but the standard of "significant coverage" hasn't been, and is unlikely ever to be, met, therefore notability not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources. Battlegroud nomination in the conflict between ClaudioSantos and Jabbsworth. The article is two years old already, why is it only now not noteworthy? Night of the Big Wind  talk  18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please AGF, as you should. This has nothing to do with ClaudioSantos. He did not create this article. I only came across it yesterday, and immediately thought it looked like a suitable candidate for deletion. It's a one line article with few sources. Jabbsworth (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This IS the friendly version, Jabbsworth. Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While there are some sources, I don't see significant coverage yet, which is part of our general notability guideline. Jesanj (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He was a victim of Nazism, who does not deserve to be eliminated by any mean again. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  04:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the sort of reasoning we use when considering whether to keep or delete an article. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly I can not share any reasoning claiming "that nazi euthanasia started out with reasonable premises" as the first murdered victim was a boy "born blind, ill and idiot" Jabbsworth. Then I insist in my criteria. Victims do not deserve to be eliminated again but, as they also commendably asked: they must be remembered by any mean. Perhaps Jabbswroth has the reason: current wikipedia criteria are more realistic and less true. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, wikipedia is not a memorial site. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability applies to every victim as much as notability applies to those who ordered and took part in the killing. This article could be expanded to detail why he was to be put to death, giving the reasons. --Hemshaw (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the concept of wp:NOTABILITY. According to you, we should have 6 million articles, one for each Holocaust victim, and each article should be expanded to include a description of the mechanisms of the holocaust! That's simply ridiculous. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Patrolling sysop: note that this Keep vote was canvassed by User:ClaudioSantos, see him dropping a link to this page onto a known sympathiser for keeping anything related to disability here: — Hemshaw added his Keep vote here 14 minutes after being canvassed. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, here com the double standards again. Why were you informing others about my supposed outing (and not me), and are other people not allowed to inform others about relevant subjects? Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I OBJECT TO THAT ACCUSATION!! I DO NOT BELEIVE IN DELETING FOR THE SAKE OF IT, SEE Deletionists I SPOTTED DELETE PROPOSAL ON MY OWN. DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF BIAS!--Hemshaw (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notifying users who edited that article is not canvassing. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  03:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is canvassing. I suggest you study what canvassing is. Picking a sympathetic editor from a list of article editors is canvassing. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You did the same, Jabbsworth. Stop crying. Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Canvassing: "...On the talk pages of concerned editors..." --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is WP:PA calling "ridiculous" a comment of an user. For the rest: I also do not "understand" or at least I can not share this sort of notability standars. Just finding notable a device to commit "sui"cide but not a victim of the nazi euthanasia. And certainly there are millions of futile things with an article in wikipedia. Of course prefering things over people is reasonable under a merchandise based "society" --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a PA to call a comment ridiculous. I suggest you study wp:PA People say ridiculous things all the time. This page is all the proof you need. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it looks like your definitions about personal attacks differs between actions of you and actions of others. Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - Both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos have been given final warnings for disruption and personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)
 * Keep. Well-sourced. While victimhood is not inherent notability, Jenne's status as the very last victim of an enormous euthanasia program is. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks like a One Event problem, but in the end, there isn't really much that can be said about Richard Jenne anyway - not enough to warrant an article. All that can be said is his name, age, and how he died, and at the moment that constitutes one small paragraph and a line in the lead. The rest isn't about Jenne at all: background about the Action T4 program, which is already covered at Action T4; information about Irsee, much of which is duplicated (often word for word) in the Irsee article; and information about Faltlhauser and Wörle. In the end, although there are sources that mention Jenne, there isn't any significant coverage to build up an article, and what there is could be better used in Action T4 rather than creating what will either be a permanent stub or, as it is now, a content fork. I should add that victims of crime, as in this case, aren't normally sufficient to warrant an article, per WP:VICTIM. Instead we create an article on the event, which we've done with Action T4. - Bilby (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still information on particualr events and data not covered by the Nazi Euthanasia Program (Aktion T4) article. For example those about Spieglegrund clinic, Heinrich Gross, about Irsee clinic the place were Jenne was killed, personal of the Aktion T4, etc. Those sub-articles about Aktion T4 deserve an own article otherwise the main article will be just a padding of data, and the data itself will be hardly found. The conexts and data about Jenne is relevant, the Irsee events on the Irsee article can be merged into Richard Jenne article leaving there just two phrases redirecting to Richard Jenne. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those other articles aren't against policy, and have enough content to stand on their own. If you take out the padding, this article doesn't have enough to stand on its own, and contravenes WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIME. Moving the Irsee events, which are about more than just Jenne, to the Richard Jenne article seems like the wrong direction - it would make more sense to move the small amount of Richard Jenne content to the Irsee article, or to the Action T4 article, given that all of the information we know about Jenne is in the context of Action T4 in general or, more specifically, what happened at Irsee - we know of nothing about Jenne outside of the event, and Jenne's role in the event was not, in itself, significant. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or move - the material about the euthanasia program is notable, although being the first or last victim is not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant coverage exists. Meets the general notability guideline.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively to Action T4. Bilby argues convincingly that there is not enough material for a separate article about this particular victim.  Sandstein   06:40, 3 August 2011 (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.