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. More sources emerged as the discussion progressed, and a consensus to keep emerged. The article still is in a state flux, however, and will need developement. Still, true of many articles here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Subject notable for only one event as per WP:BIO1E. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, per WP:CHANCE. The article is less than 24 hours old. YardsGreen (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please address the criteria in question, WP:BIO1E. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO1E, by my reading, refers to the case where there is an article about an event and a separate article about a person who participated in that event, and who also is not notable for any other reason. To my knowledge, there is no article about this event, and the real issue is whether this person and event are notable at all. (On general notability, see my comment below.) YardsGreen (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteUpmerge/redirect (per AustralianRupert below) - other than an unsourced photo and a few discussion forums I cannot find much about Schultz either on the web, Google books or Scholar. As such it would appear that the subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore is non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I couldn't find much either with a quick Google search. However, by its historical nature, the most reliable sources on this person may be offline. Since the article was PRODed within an hour of its creation, and nominated for AfD less than 24 hours later, I think we're jumping the gun here. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. And, keeping in mind that most of the editors to this article so far are IPs, don't bite the newbies. YardsGreen (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came up with WP:DANNO to describe situations like this, too... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. WWII is rather heavily studied and something like this should show some hint of coverage through google book search. It doesn't. So I don't see that such coverage is likely available. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment German high command did not publish the truth about Josef Shultz's death and instead recorded him as being killed by the partisans. His brother later learned the truth from German Bundestag member Wilderich Freiherr Ostman von der Leye and recognized Schultz from photographs of the event. Emphasis added. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please add an inline citation for this to the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google Book Search is not the end-all-be-all of reliable sources. Especially when those sources may not be in English. There is good reason to think that reliable sources exist offline for this topic. Since that is the case, we should not immediately delete the article, especially since the primary editors involved are IPs, and may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies on sourcing and citations. YardsGreen (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - Fair enough. That's enough evidence for me that sources may exist that we should allow time for other editors to add references per the current tagging. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Sources are likely to be mainly offline and not in English. Article should be given a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - IMO this is a credibility issue for wikipedia. So far all the keeps have said is that there must be an offline source somewhere but they cannot find it. All articles must be verifiable and so far, despite us looking we cannot. This one smells like a legend to me and until it can be proven we shouldn't publish such things. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This source needs consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a poem about the alleged incident. I agree that the latent 'facts' seem to be supported by it but IMO its not a reliable source for our purposes. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In English sources his name has been anglicised to "Joseph". There are several sources including this and also this (on page 15) which seems to correspond with part of the version of events, but I don't think sources help overcome the WP:BIO1E issue. I think that the story, while perhaps apocryphal, has been used to symbolise the bravery of standing up against the group will when your conscience tells you otherwise. Where that leaves it in terms of an AfD, I have no idea. - ManicSpider (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further - Or perhaps not apocryphal? This is apparently the photo of him walking towards the other side... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicSpider (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more - there have been two very short documentaries made on Schultz. One was by Predrag Golubvic, Yugoslavia, 1973, 13 mins and the other was made in the 1950s. Honestly, I think this is sounding to me like a keep' but as I say, I'm not sure of the ins and outs of WP:BIO1E. - ManicSpider (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is completly unsourced (as I said above) and of the two other sources you linked above one is a collection of 'Funeral Homilies' and the other seems to be a novel ('Shadow'). Again neither are reliable sources IMO. The question that needs to be answered is "is the subject notable"? Currently there seems to be an assumption that he must be because of the act that he is said to have committed. Yet as far as I can tell the subject was not awarded a major military decoration as a result (which I accept the Germans would have been unlikely to have done at any rate - but maybe the Serbians did after the war), nor does there seem to be significant coverage of him beyond questionable internet forums, books of poetry and non-fiction. Perhaps this guy existed and did what he did, but so far we can't verify that. Even if he did though that doesn't make him automatically notable, no matter how much his actions might seem worthy. For me no sources = not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect as per discussion below Keep - I'm sorry if I was unclear, I was typing as I researched. Firstly, the first two sources I mentioned were just the first two I found under the search for the anglicised version of the name - you're right, the Shadow one is bad and I wouldn't use it - but there are plenty more including this and this from from the Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (which mentions another source book) . Secondly, there are plenty of sources for Schultz - in fact, the documentary made on his life is recommended in several places as a teaching resource. There are sources to prove notability. Whether I can prove he was a living person is a different matter, but that doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. Fictional characters have articles as well. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could suggest renaming the article 'The death of Josef Schultz' if the problem is the biographical aspect? Because really it is his death that has been notable, not his life. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are more promising but they are very limited. As such I have some questions and comments:

• Re: "Jouney to the White Rose in Germany" by Ruth Bernadette Melon. Specifically what is this? Is it a work of fiction or non-fiction? Its not immediately clear to me (my internet is very slow so Google books isn't always functional to me). At anyrate it hardly seems like an academic reference so I'm not sure this is reliable.
• Re: Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies website. This seems to be a very short synopsis of the video documentary ("Joseph Schultz" 1973 by Predrag Golobovic). But I think this might qualify as a reliable source.
• Re: "The Holocaust: an annotated bibliography and resource guide" by David M. Szonyi. This is also a very short synopsis of the documentary and claims that it is based on a true event. IMO it is also a reliable source.

As such is this "significant independent coverage"? A short 13 minute documentary from 1973 and two synopsis of that video. I'm not convinced but at the very least they could be used to flesh out some of the missing details in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge/redirect: I'm not sure that there is enough notability for a biographical article, but the Ruth Melon book Journey to the White Rose in Germany listed by ManicSpider seems like a reliable source. Thus, I would support adding a brief mention of the incident in a parent article (maybe German resistance perhaps) but I don't believe that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to support an individual article. Of course, any merge would need to be done in a manner so as to not breech WP:UNDUE. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this could be a workable solution. Anotherclown (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, having looked at the Melon source again, I am also confused by it. Is it a novel? If so, I believe that Anotherclown would be correct and it couldn't be used as a source for a biographical article. Nevertheless, I still think that a merge/redirect is probably the best solution, given that there doesn't appear (to me, at least) that there is "significant coverage" in reliable sources as per WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging into "Resistance in the Army 1938–42" in German resistance would be appropriate. As a sidenote, I'm fascinated by the weird sourcing for this, and plan to go to the National Library to see if they have any better information - ManicSpider (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) (Yay for teamwork!) [reply]

• Comment This photo is well known. I have it seen several times before, and it is often used to illustrate acts of resistance, etc. But this is the first time I hear of Josef Schultz, generally captions say only "German soldier dropping his gun to stand besides Yugoslav partisans" or suchlike. Compare with Sharbat Gula and Phan Thi Kim Phuc. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the addition of these images. I have seen no reliable source which proves that they are of the subject (Josef Schultz). If such a source exists please add it to the article as well. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the images do not seem adequately sourced. Currently it says "Taken by a German soldier present at the event". Ok, they probably were taken by a German soldier at the event, but from where did the uploader obtain them? E.g. were they scanned from a book or taken from a website? That is what needs to be included in the source field. Currently there is no proof that they relate to the subject of the article, and without proper attribution I think they should be removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the problem [1], [2]. Sorry, that was sloppy of me. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are internet forums and as such neither of these sources are reliable IMO.Anotherclown (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is long dead, so this is not a WP:BLP issue at all. The event seems notable and I believe that multiple sources could be found--the story being so exceptional. Jehochman ^Talk 05:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it seem notable? Anotherclown (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why attempt to delete something 41 minutes after its creation? Its obviously a notable event. There is now a link to a documentary about this. And they erected a monument to the guy, he going down in the history books. Dream Focus 06:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:ILIKEIT? Regardless of when it was nominated to this point no one has been able to find "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Can you? Anotherclown (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like sources could be found, but they are probably dead-tree media in libraries, and might be in foreign languages since this guy was from somewhere in Eastern Europe. IT is a bit hasty to expect all those sources to be found with an hour of starting the article, or even within the one week that this AfD will run. Already we see editors coming forward with a few sources and leads to possibly more. That should be enough to keep the article around for now. Jehochman ^Talk 07:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. So far all we have is a bunch of non-fiction, several collections of poems and homilies, and internet forums and discussions. None of these are reliable sources. The only things approaching reliable sources located so far is a 13 minute documentary from 1973 and two internet summaries of that documentary. This is hardly "significant independent coverage" under the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clearly notable, but let's work on developing the article and getting authoritative references. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a policy? "Its clearly notable" has been used as an argument to keep this a number of times, so again I ask why. Because you think it is worthy? Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• non-fiction = not-fiction, which means truth. If you have a collection of truth, its fine. The only policy is WP:Verify and the documentary proves this exist. Do you think an event like this, notable enough to have a monument erected and a documentary made for it, wouldn't get newspaper coverage? Dream Focus 07:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I meant fiction of course, apologies (therefore not the truth). I was distracted by the cricket. Anyway where is the reference to prove there is a monument? Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google translator is having problems with this. We need to find someone who speaks the language to look at that community's official website at http://www.lokve-sanmihai.rs/ They should list all monuments and history they have. Can even email one of them and ask them to check a local map. Dream Focus 08:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say my reading of the White Rose book is that it was a travelogue written by a history teacher about her trip. Just on the fiction/non-fiction thing. - ManicSpider (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Google Books source ("Serbien ist judenfrei": militärische Besatzungspolitik und Judenvernichtung by Walter Manoschek, footnote on p. 189) that cites evidence that this is a legend, Schulz (spelled thus) having died from wounds the day before. I haven't checked further yet. The coverage would seem to indicate that the legend is notable. --Boson (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I have included this in the lead, but it needs to be covered in the article's body, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are verifiable sources that this story exists and meets the WP:GNG. Whether it is true or not may be another matter, and the article should be modified to only present what can be verified as fact. This will be a challenge to keep balanced unless more research makes the truth readily verifiable, but deletion is not the solution here. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Film reviews of the documentary from the seventies: [3] [4] [5] [6] ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per comment of VQuakr. "there are verifiable sources that this story exists and meets the WP:GNG. Whether it is true or not may be another matter."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per VQuakr and Antidiskiriminator. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my edits to the article [7], and additional online sources I found during the research like this and this one, which imho sufficiently establish that while there is no fame and no abundancy of high quality sources involved, the man and the movie meet wikipedia's notability criteria. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• user:Antidiskriminator has been diligent and provided me with the following sources [8] (sr), [9] (sr), [10] (de), [11](sr), [12] (sr), (google translations [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) that could help with the {{accuracy}} tag. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient notability established. I did not find this because it was listed by the Article Rescue Squadron--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.