Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Kae Knecht
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 per wp:snow. No productive reason to leave this open that I can see. Keeper ǀ 76 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Karl Kae Knecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable, unsourced article, not seeing any claim to lasting notability on google and being "instrumental" without a source, is a weasel word. MBisanz talk 19:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable, and no sources, reliable or otherwise. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Subject of the article clearly exists; nothing else matters. Sources are only necessary for direct quotes and for statements someone is challenging, so the lack thereof is not a valid reason to delete. If you have a problem with lack of sources, perhaps you should do some productive work yourself rather than lazily deleting the hard work of others because you can't be bothered to do anything positive for the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. You've got to admire Kurt's rabid inclusionism, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep but not per Kurt. There do seem to be sources, as Nsk92 pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly needs improvement, expansion and better sourcing, but IMO the subject is notable and passes WP:BIO. First, regarding helping to found the zoo. I did a bit of googling and there is a mention at the website of the Willar library in Indiana that confirms this[1]: "Knecht Building. One of the first buildings at the zoo (named in honor of Karl Kae Knecht, who helped to found the zoo); photo dated 1930 (Knecht 1526)". I'd like to have a better ref but this one is OK for now. GoogleNews[2] and, particularly, GoogleBooks[3] searches show reasonably substantial coverage, including a very recent news-story[4]. There was, for instance, a newstory about him in 1955 whose title starts "Karl Kae Knecht, Famed Cartoonist, Returns To Old Home..."[5]. Also, more significantly, a book "The world of Karl Kae Knecht through his cartoons" was published in 1979, 5 years afte his death[6]. I do not have access to this book at the moment but from what I understood from this link[7], that is a book written by another person, Philip Ensley, professor of history at the University of Evansville, about Knecht's art (with, presumably, a substantial amount of biographical info). I think that this book alone already makes him pass WP:BIO, even though it is not exactly a biography. Nsk92 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's a university press book devoted to his work, which is certainly enough for notability by any standard. No need to argue further, just expand the article. MBisanz, do you want to withdraw the nom? I can't help thinking it would have been more useful for Kurt to check than to debate general principles. DGG (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable and sourced, in need of expansion and improvement, but that's not a reason for deletion. We don't delete an article if it's too short or written badly. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DGG sums it up well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable individual, with lots of non-trivial mentions in other publications. I happen to agree with Kurt that it's better to look for sources than to go straight to AfD. Majorly talk 13:56, 20 September 2008 (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.