Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Kiehn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This article's subject is found to not be notable enough for inclusion. — Tea // have a ☕️ // leaves // 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Kiehn

[edit]
William Kiehn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kiehn served honorably but without meeting WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. He does not appear in the index of Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose. There is no credit for a role in the television series in IMDb (problems with that site acknowledged). Kiehn was killed in action in February 1945. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Kiehn's role in the company and especially his death is frequently discussed in books, but his name is usually given as "Bill Kiehn" (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). This is one in a series of AfDs about members of the Band of Brothers, and I'm unclear how to think about notability in these cases. The individuals feature in a number of historical and fictionalized accounts, and short profiles of their lives seem to exist in reliable sources. I understand that they are mostly notable for one thing and few/none meet NSOLDIER, but it seems to me their notability has persisted for a long time, especially since the movie Saving Private Ryan in 1998 and Band of Brothers (the book in 1993, the miniseries in 2001). That said, Google Books results suggest Kiehn only receives in depth coverage in the two Brotherton books currently cited in the article. I don't see in depth discussion of him elsewhere (but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist). Smmurphy(Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are some other recent Band of Brothers AfDs:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Evans result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Mampre result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmo M. Haney result: No Concensus NB: Haney was a marine, and not in Easy company nor in any BoB media that I know of, but was a character in a different miniseries, sorry.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Boyle result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Cobb result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meehan III (2nd nomination) result: delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans result: delete
At the List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans AfD, Jim in Georgia/GAArmyVet (who is the nom on most of these) noted that they believed none of the members of Easy are/were notable, so I expect this list to grow. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am the nominator on the recent AfDs; Evans and Haney were not mine although I was on the side of deleting in both cases. I'm working from the Band of Brothers miniseries, which appears on every Easy Company related page. In one sense, that template is a guide to the ten episodes of TV and nothing more. If we're only talking about the TV production, we should delete all the references to Ambrose, Brotherton, Ooms, Alexander and Kingseed (authors/co-authors all) and work on describing only the characters. I don't spend a lot of time on TV-oriented pages, most it would seem most of the characters barely qualify because they're largely forgettable. If we're talking about real people, no one one the list qualifies under WP:SOLDIER except Robert Sink and he only because he was later promoted to brigadier general (and eventually to lieutenant general) after the events in Ambrose's book. Some of those who don't qualify under SOLDIER may well qualify under WP:GNG because of what came after WW II or other factors. Richard Winters was an inspiration to his men after the War. Some of the men worked for the CIA and were involved in the Vietnam War. I think Norman Dike was originally a hatchet job by Ambrose and the men of Easy. I'm beginning to wonder about Herbert Sobel. There are more AfDs to come.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your reply. I bring up the book, movie, and miniseries in order to contextualize the rise in popularity of material on the company. In my opinion, these figures might not have articles on them without that popularity. In a sense, they are a sort of fancruft, but maybe that is the wrong word. However, given the popularity is there, the articles do not seem to fail the three core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:POV, so the issue is GNG and the best interest of our readers. Further, the sources seem to me to be basically reliable, so the GNG question has to do with depth. I agree that not every member of Easy Company is automatically suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. I'm not sure where the line is, but for me, this individual seems to have been a substantial character in a number of different tellings of the story of the company. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fancruft" may be a good word. Without the series and, before it, the book we wouldn't be having this conversation because many of these guys were no better soldiers than men we've never heard of. They're also a lot better than some. I don't know if we have a page about the criminal enterprises in Paris operated by Americans who had deserted; that casts a whole new light on the "greatest generation." <sigh> I really think the (non-existent) "BoB Project" can be improved by saying less. After all, people who want to read about the series can go to the Wikia project, which is actually pretty good as wikis go.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as with the others; the fact is, many served and many died; just not notable for a stand alone article. WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm striking my !vote. I've been thinking about this a bit more and looking over the other members of the company, and I think a possible alternative is to treat BoB as a "franchise". We have lists of characters of other franchises, such as List of characters in the Garfield franchise or whatever similar franchise list you like, but it turns out that having an especially long article, E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) pretty much covers most of what one might want to know from such a list. A link to a roster could someday be added to that page, and a list of non-notable individuals isn't really necessary (and is against policies and consensuses). Many individuals would still have their own page, though, and be listed at that page. Here are my guesses at what my criteria would be if more BoB individuals were sent to AfD:
    • An individual may be of enough historical significance that they would meet GNG even without the BoB "franchise" publications. For instance, Donald Malarkey may be borderline notable due to having a local political career, being a public speaker, and having numerous profiles of him as one of the last surviving members of the group. I don't think there are many of these individuals, but a few, probably all of them make for suitable pages.
    • An individual may just miss SOLDIER #1, but arguably meet SOLDIER #4 or #5, such as Richard Winters, William Guarnere, and possibly some of the company commanders. They might not be known about without the BoB franchise, but BoB is reliable enough and gives quite a bit of depth about their military actions as well as some personal life background. I think most of these could make for suitable pages.
    • An individual may be included as a character and be mentioned in non-BoB franchise materials and have had a somewhat public career. An example is David Kenyon Webster, who published some writings and his diary was posthumously published. Because this extra information passes V, and their presence in "franchise" publications is in depth, I think these can make for suitable pages.
    • A related group to the previous two are individuals who are only mentioned in non-BoB franchise materials because they are one of the last surviving members of the group. An example is the now deleted Leo Boyle. For these, I would !vote weak keep for at least some, but am not sure.
    • It could be argued that the rest are notable only as characters in the "franchise", and thus would fit in a list of characters. Such lists is a bit crufty, but that can be ok. I will not be creating one, and if one were created, it would have to be done with care given the consensus at the E Company talk page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans. I would probably not !vote delete for these, as I couldn't be sure that they do not pass on one of the above criteria in an offline capacity, but I would understand why they were up at AfD and I would not, generally, oppose their deletion. Kiehn seems to fit into this group.
  • This is just an explanation of why I am striking my !vote and an attempt to express my feelings in advance of anticipated related AfDs. I hope it is understood that I feel these criteria are within the spirit and letter of existing Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is meant to be helpful, and is not an attempt to create new deletion criteria. I am also adding a related comment at Jim in Georgia/GAArmyVet's talk page. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we are to treat BoB as a franchise, then we need to edit all the pages and strike all references to the biographies of the men involved. Anything that happened before or after the war, except for things mentioned in the voiceovers at the end of the tenth episode, becomes moot. Even the reminiscences of the real men are historical rather than the historical fiction of the series, which compressed characters, created characters (the Belgian nurse), and reassigned tasks performed from one character to another. Then we can selectively created pages for the men who rate them under general notability (Sink is the only person who qualifies under WP:SOLDIER (and, yes, I know it's an essay). Winters may be arguable).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Kiehn doesn't appear by name in the series, so we can do a speedy delete on his page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Sorry in advance for the long reply] By franchise, I mean that while the books are more or less reliable sources for the historical individuals, they can be treated as a something more akin to a single thing. N is built on three parts, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. V is satisfied when WP:RS are used. I think these books and their authors are more or less RS. NOR is satisfied when coverage is in depth and not primary (being in depth enough to write with sufficiently detail also allows an article to avoid WP:NOT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE), which is satisfied for many of these individuals on the basis of these books. NPOV might be trickier. These individuals are well known because one author thought their story was a good case to show the general point of what life was like for WWII soldiers (or something like that). To say that their case is representative is, then, the POV of that author. If another author agrees, then there is a question whether we have multiple points of view. If we treat all of the books as a "franchise", that is think of subsequent books are retellings/sequels/spin-offs, some by different authors, then all we have is the POV of the initial author and POVs that are somewhat derivative. Thus, an independent source would help to show the individual is well known, even if they are still only known for being a part of the franchise. Of course, if an individual played an important role in a historic event, then while we must take care in how we present the POV of the author on that event, the individual's notability can be established within the franchise, or even within a single book (NB, if they played a significant role in a battle, something like a silver star could be akin to a second POV on their importance).
I don't think this is the same as treating them as a single source, nor do I think that the collection should be treated as fictional. Rather, I would say that the contribution to the notability of a figure which has in depth coverage in a BoB related non-fiction book must be dealt with in a nuanced way. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Kiehn&oldid=1136106899"