Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sàndor (Alexandru) Ausch


 * 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 delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sàndor (Alexandru) Ausch

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Essentially, this man took care of his tiny Jewish community, decimated by the Holocaust and emigration. While a laudable pursuit, nothing here really indicates notability as contemplated by WP:NBIO. Yes, he won presidential medals in two countries — but both are routine awards handed out to numerous people every year, hardly rising to the “well-known and significant award or honor” standard set by WP:ANYBIO. Other than that, there isn’t much. I won’t go into every single reference in the article, but for example, this or this doesn’t mention Ausch at all, while this is a phone book entry (trivial mention). What is glaringly lacking is “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. — Biruitorul Talk 15:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey @Biruitorul - in trying to understand your feedback, I think I notice two trends - one is a commentary on the quality of the article, and the other, a comment on the notability of the person.
 * So I'm interpreting your notes on the references above, as notes on the quality of the article. Specifically, on the quality of the article:
 * 1. Can you please provide some context about why the first reference (listed as 18) is not appropriate? In context, it is used as a reference providing supporting details for the kinds of activity that the Targu Mures society is engaged in (which the subject of the article has been recognized for leading). What would a better reference for that topic look like, in your opiniong (there are dozens of articles on the topic, I'm sure if you provide some guidelines for an improved reference, it's available).
 * 2. The second reference you're mentioning (this) is an interview with Mr. Ausch and mentions him by name directly at least 5 times, never mind quotes him throughout, so I don't know what would make it better as a reference (please elaborate).
 * 3. The third reference you're mentioning backs up the comment that the person in the article was occasionally referred to as the "Rabi" of the community. It is a relatively small mention, but it is included in passed local legislation for the city - ie., a significantly independent source from anything else referenced in the page, which referred to the person as a "Rabi".
 * Also, I'm not sure why this request for deletion is explicitly cherry picking the least interesting references - the strongest references are press releases from the Hungarian and Romanian national governments (this) and (this) respectively, which I think pass an initial quality bar for the article. Obviously it can and will improve over time, as I think most Wikipedia articles tend to.
 * More generally, I'm relatively new to wikipedia as a contributor, and I welcome constructive feedback to help improve quality. Eg. if the details about this specific person are not too relevant (maybe we shouldn't care that the local community tended to refer to Mr. Ausch as a Rabi? I'm not sure if that specific factoid passes the bar for what might be included about someone of this level of notability, vs not). Generally speaking, though, if you're talking about a notability argument based on the quality of the article, I think that's (probably) salvageable - with improved references, or possibly less space dedicated to details that might not be interesting or relevant.
 * As far as just notability as a bar for this person, I see significant discussion elsewhere in Wikipedia space on whether one knighthood from a single country, on its own, is a sufficient for notability, and the opinion seems split. That said, after reading through all of the various discussions, I suspect that two separate knighthoods, from two separate un-related nations, clearly pass the bar of public recognition/notability.
 * For example, the Romanian knighthood ordered referenced is offered via (presidential decree) based on public recommendations by ministers and other notable, nationally recognized, public figures, and has a maximum limit of 5000 knight members over all time (please note that Mr. Ausch was granted the Knighthood, which is limited and has a high bar to pass, as opposed to the Medal, which does not have any limits - see this reference). Membership into a knighthood order which can never contain more than 5000 names, out of currently 20m+ Romanian citizens (plus however many citizens become born / qualified for inclusion over time), (ie. far less than 0.00025 of folk that might be considered for knighthood will ever receive it) implies a significantly high notability bar.
 * Considering the other knighthood and assuming a similarly high bar for it being granted, we're talking about fewer than 20 people on the planet - so it seems like a reasonable notability bar, and unlikely to spam wikipedia with frivolous references.
 * keep So I think anyone who has been granted membership into at least two selective knighthood orders, from at least two separate governments (ie., leaving out knighthoods or other awards that are customary or honorary or otherwise not selective), generally passes the notability bar for inclusion into wikipedia Blueberryfiddles (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * keep So I think anyone who has been granted membership into at least two selective knighthood orders, from at least two separate governments (ie., leaving out knighthoods or other awards that are customary or honorary or otherwise not selective), generally passes the notability bar for inclusion into wikipedia Blueberryfiddles (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 16:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I can find no sources which meet all criteria of WP:GNG. The sources which has outlined as 'the strongest' fail the significant coverage criterion. I also disagree with various of their claims regarding the importance of the order of medals (not knighthood) to which Ausch was appointed. I wish them the best of luck in the future, and invite them to my talk page if they wish to discuss.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Romania.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not covered by significant sources, not inherently notable. Dahn (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - The article fails WP:GNG as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's an interview (a primary source and not independent) and soft trivial mentions, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the subject. The awards aren't an indication of notability and are not a part of any notability criteria that I am aware of. - Aoidh (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2022 (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.