Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore N. Kaufman

:{{la|Theodore N. Kaufman}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Theodore N. Kaufman}})

Kaufman wrote a pamphlet in 1941 called Germany Must Perish which argued for the sterilization of the German people in order to prevent further wars. The book attracted a small amount of attention in the US (basically a sarcastic review in Time magazine), however the Nazis learned about the book and they used it as propaganda to argue that the Jews had declared war on Germany. The Nazis said that Kaufman was a close ally of Roosevelt, but in fact he was a nobody. In a 1944 article about the book, The Nation referred to Kaufman as "an obscure businessman" and noted that "few Americans have ever heard of [him]". [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/349981/kaufman/the%20nation.pdf] The wikipedia article notes that he disappeared from the public eye after September 1941. The book is notable, Kaufman himself is not. This article makes very dubious claims (that he addressed Congress in 1939 for instance - Time magazine only says that he urged Congress, which anyone can do from anywhere in the world) which, I believe, are intended to make Kaufman seem more significant than he was in order to allow people to repeat Goebel's claim that Kaufman's book demonstrated a significant Jewish threat to Germany. GabrielF (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

::::Obscure does not mean he is not-notable by Wikipedia standards. I would have to say that 99.9999% of biographies in Wikipedia are about obscure people. There are only a few thousand people with high Q Scores like recent presidents and major movie stars and major athletes. Everyone else is obscure. My state senators are obscure, I can't name either of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If we remove the author for being insignificant, then the article on the book should be removed as well, since they are inextricably related. The author wrote several books and caused a major uproar which influenced Nazi Germany. There is NO reason to remove the article.

:the review in Time was NOT "sarcastic", although I appreciate your interest in downplaying its influence.

:the fact that the Nazi's thought he was "somebody" makes "WHO HE IS" an important component of history.

:Few Americans have ever heard of a prominent fellow-citizen named Kaufmann or know that he is one of President Roosevelt's most intimate friends and advisers. In Germany, every child has known of him for a long time.

:Ernest Hemingway adopted the beliefs of Kaufman.

:Kaufman himself admitted that he talked to Congress

If you have improvements to offer, do so, but requesting wholesale deletion would require that this issue be escalated to a higher level.216.189.209.130 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

:Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This is the appropriate forum for deletion requests to be discussed. There is no "higher level". Hemingway made a proposal similar to Kaufman's (perhaps jokingly). The source does not say that Hemingway was influenced by Kaufman, merely that the two stated a similar idea. The Time article states that: "But in 1939 it had appeared as chairman of the American Federation of Peace, which urged Congress either 1) to keep the U. S. out of Europe's wars, or 2) to sterilize all Americans so that their children might not become homicidal monsters." This does not mean that Kaufman personally addressed or talked to Congress. (If he did, than there would probably be some mention of that fact in either the Washington Post or the NY Times which I could not find). It merely states that he "urged Congress". I could post flyers around town urging Congress to do something. That wouldn't make me notable. The fact that Kaufman was briefly well known in Germany is entirely related to his book. The Nazis made up a fake story about him being influential to go along with the book. That can be dealt with in a paragraph in the article about the book. A separate article about Kaufman is unnecessary. The article Germany Must Perish states that Kaufman's other books were insignificant. GabrielF (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

::::That is why we don't have articles on those publications, but that doesn't have a bearing on his own notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —GabrielF (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —GabrielF (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —GabrielF (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think the author passes the notability guidelines. My reading of the times piece suggests he actually addressed congress (but I admit it could be clearer), so he does have some notability independent of the book. That said, the coverage of the book in the bio article is redundant, and that section(s) should be gutted and replaces with a brief summary and a see also to the book article. Monty₈₄₅ 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• :I think this is the source of the Congress business. In 1939, Time reported that a group called the American Federation of Peace was mailing out some particularly grisly postcards to people, one of which said: ""A possible plea to Congress. . . . 'HAVE US ALL STERILIZED! . . . IF YOU PLAN ON SENDING US TO A FOREIGN WAR . . . SPARE US ANY POSSIBILITY OF EVER BRINGING CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD—INTO THIS COUNTRY OF OURS!'" Kaufman is not mentioned. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,772239,00.html] GabrielF (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:1E with a redirect to Germany Must Perish!. This is a quintessential example of a resoundingly obscure individual notable for involvement in a single event, well described in the book article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:1E with a redirect to Germany Must Perish!. I don't see that, even if he really did address Congress, that would make him notable beyond the single phenomenon. DBaba (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:1E with a redirect to Germany Must Perish!. He's obviously notable for only one event. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::Which of the events that he is listed in Time magazine and the New York Times for do you think is his one event? The one in 1934, the one one in 1939 or the one in 1941? Coverage goes well into the 1990s in books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Article provides context to his historically significant book. I suppose one might merge the two articles, but why? I am very much opposed to snuffing this information without merger. Carrite (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Give it time to develop and then revisit. At this time there is still potential for further information to be located that further addresses notability to determine whether it is fringe or over the line. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

::: Keep there appears to be sufficient material for a stand alone article on him. I don't believe the one-event is valid since biographical information in the New York Times starts in 1934 before publication of his book. His American Federation of Peace has a short article in 1939 in Time magazine. He has biographical material published in 1995, fifty years after writing his book. See the additional references that I added. All should have been found by others who voted delete, who did so without doing any research, outside of reading the article as it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect I would have to agree that he is only notable for one event. That the article seems much longer now is only because a (now blocked) editor filled it out with a lot of non-NPOV details that were claimed to have been "translated from the German wikipedia." Once that stuff is removed and we stick to the single source that mentions the subject, we'll just have a stub that is redundant to the article on the book itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep How can a man get that much press for his book, and not be notable? Google news only shows results from 1941. But click on Google book search and Google scholar search and you'll see that he and his work get mentioned elsewhere at times. If he wasn't notable, then he wouldn't still be getting mentioned decades later. Dream Focus 17:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Ha ha! You missed 1934 because you used parenthesis in your search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per WP:1E and per Loonymonkey. Strip out all the redundant material about the book that is already in the book's article and you don't have much left. It then becomes WP:1E. He is not notable about the robbery in 1934, the "plea to Congress" (not appearing or talking with any member of congress) in 1939 or anything after the publication of the book. According to the article, his next and last publication after the book "received no reported attention in the press." Kaufman is the book. You don't mention Kaufman without mentioning the book. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

:::The Wikipedia rule is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." That includes coverage of events from 1934, 1939 and 1941 and coverage up till 1995. 1934 isn't incidental if the New York Times devoted two articles to the robbery. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

::::There is nothing in the article that mentions anything about Kaufman after 1942. The 1934 robbery is incidental. The two New York Times articles about the robbery are behind a paywall. Do you happen to have a source or copy of the articles? Like to know what they say as I can't find anything else about the robbery. Except for one incidental robbery, everything about Kaufman is about the book. Kaufman should be mentioned on Wikipedia, but it should be in the article about the book as the two go hand in hand. Bgwhite (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

:::::Here are the two NYTimes articles. [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/349981/kaufman/kaufman1934_1.pdf 1934 1] and [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/349981/kaufman/kaufman1934_2.pdf 1934 2]. My interpretation is that this was a business dispute that got out of hand, but was historically insignificant. Biographical coverage of Kaufman really revolves around the one book. The 1939 article doesn't mention Kaufman by name. FWIW Richard Arthur Norton has done a great job cleaning up the article. `GabrielF (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

::::It doesn't have to mention him by name. If you took logic in Junior High School you would know the transitive property which means American Federation of Peace = Theodore N. Kaufman. We use synonyms all the time in Wikipedia. World War I = The Great War and many, many others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per historical significance, historical repercussions, and major recent improvements since nomination. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". WP:1E encourages such articles... not their deletion. We are here to increase a reader's understanding of a topic, not limit it. And note... Wikipedia's coverage of events of 1941 is not to be limited to only those thing notable to America or known only IN America. Notable to Germany, even "Reich" Germany through ramifications, if properly sourced (as this one is) is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A fascinating spotlight on an aspect of American history in the years preceding and during World War II. Adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Writing a book that was reviewed or discussed in Time magazine and The Nation and which had a demonstrable impact on Nazi-era German propaganda (to the extent of being singled out for commentary by Goebbels) does not strike me as the sort of "single event" contemplated by WP:1E. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Germany Must Perish!. Interesting content, but it's largely duplicated in that article; I don't see the need for both, given that Theodore Kaufman doesn't seem to have been particularly notable apart from that book. (For what it's worth, I'd be just as open to merging Germany Must Perish! into this article instead.) Robofish (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect I don't see material that is substantial, substantially sourced, and substantially about Kaufmann save for GMP, and some of the early life stuff, e.g., the 1939 robbery feels coatracked as a result. (I recognize that other editors feel that material is more valuable.) Short of merge/redirect, I'd prefer keep, the GMP material is fascinating, I just don't think there's much biographical here save for the GMP content, and I think i'll be easier to maintain one good article about the GMP material (perhaps with some bio material on Kaufmann) than two articles with substantial repetition. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Per Alansohn. Am open to separate merge discussion after AfD, but content is notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:21, 26 April 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.