Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefanie Rabatsch

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Rabatsch

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

Reason Delete. The subject does not meet a single one of the requirements for WP:NOTABLE. ((See also e.g. WP:INVALIDBIO - relationships with well-known persons do not confer notability - and this relationship is not even suitably evidenced). Rabatsch is alleged by one unreliable contemporary self-publicist(August Kubizek) to have once been briefly the object of Adolf Hitler's affections. It is conceded that Hitler never spoke a word to her and that she was completely unaware of any such intentions on his part. No source documentation exists about this supposed relationship apart from Kubizek's discredited memoirs, which were written long after the supposed event. Nothing else is known about her and she undertook no actions which were WP:NOTABLE. Nothing which she did altered the course of the world, human consciousness or knowledge one iota. The article could be deleted altogether or, at best, replaced by a redirect to August Kubizek. I am astounded that this article has been promoted to a GA; whilst it might possibly meet GA standards (and I personally would contest that) it is absurd that no editor considered its notability at the time.Smerus (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree wholeheartedly with the nomination. A search for reliable sources hasn't turned anything up. Also - a "Good Article" that doesn't include a crucial detail like the date or place of death? That's very surprising - I recently rated an article as a C Class based on the omission of that type of detail. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hamann seems like a good source to me establishing the importance of Rabatsch in Hitler's youth [1] and the rest of the sources seem acceptable enough. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, Roland's Nazi Women discusses her in depth from page 14 to 17, and you can read most of it on google books, albeit without page numbers and with the different last name (and mentioning Isak as another possible last name, by the way). The different names probably should be discussed in the article, but isn't a reason to discard the source. Haman and Roland are both heavily based on Kubizek, and there are at least a dozen books on google books which mention here, all basically based on Kubizek, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per INVALIDBIO. The sources we have well-establish Hitler had a crush on this girl and she didn't even know his name but the sources aren't about her, at all. WP:BASIC states that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." so that eliminates the Kubizek book. The Daily Mail piece shamefully recounts Kubizek's book; there's no analysis or fact-checking in evidence. Hitler is the subject of almost every sentence that mentions her in the Haman book. Nazi Women says her last name was Jansten and the article doesn't even mention this inconsistency. Like Exemplo347, I've had not one but two GA noms of mine refused (Rudy Boesch and Ernie Brace) because of a lack of detail and I had way more information about my subjects than this article shows. @Calvin999: You performed the GA review. What did you find when you researched the sources? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deemed it notable at the time of passing and it is a position I maintain. — Calvin999 18:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. I'd like to know what you found when you researched the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks showed that the information is accurate and reliable. What have you found? — Calvin999 19:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin99 (or any other editor) 'deeming it notable' is irrelevant - it's just WP:OPINION. Please justify this article against the clear criteria for notability. If you can't, then out it goes.--Smerus (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I !voted keep because it is my opinion that the article does meet the notability guidelines and I tried to explain why. My understanding is that we are seeking a consensus of opinions about whether or not the subject is suitable for an article, so I'm not sure what is the problem about giving an opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: No, we're not looking for mere opinions. Per WP:AFDEQ, "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Rationales that are policy-based are what's needed. You can voice an opinion but it might not go far. @Calvin999: My comments are above. WP:GACR requires that the coverage "addresses the main aspects of the topic". The article is arguably focused solely on Hitler's infatuation with her which is why we're now questioning notability. This article doesn't even state when the subject died (if she's dead, which she probably is). This was your job as a GA reviewer. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus is about opinions, though, no? Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can say "out it goes" when there is a consensus for it to go, Smerus, which there isn't. And I know what is involved in reviewing, Chris troutman, I done enough of them. If you feel it doesn't meet it, then that's your entitlement. Aside from that, there is no need to adopt a passive-aggressive, personal tone. It is not very mature. — Calvin999 23:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What I mean to say is, !voting "I like it" or "I don't like it" isn't valid. If your opinion is "I think this passes GNG" or "I think this fails GNG" then that's fine. The issue becomes when an editor says that a subject is or is not notable without pointing to specific policies or guidelines. I would say an opinion is absent a basis in our guidelines. If you can point to some guidance (even an essay) then you have a rationale, not just an opinion. Whether or not a subject passes GNG should be more of an objective fact than an opinion although editors can disagree with interpretation. I hope that makes sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, you repeatedly bring this back to what you have done, your experience, etc. That is not acceptable. There are rules about notability; I didn't make them and neither did you. But I accept them, and apparently you don't. Whatever your experience and opinions, they cannot trump the clear guidelines for notability. You have yet to demonstrate that the article does meet those guidelines, and your silence on this aspect (whilst at the same time insisting on your own capacity to judge in this matter) in fact speaks volumes.Smerus (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to August Kubizek, where his memoir already redirects. I am proposing this on the understanding that no other significant sources about Hitler's alleged infatuation with Rabatsch/Isak exist. Because the story certainly has had legs, repeatedly picked up in other books and in periodicals since Kubized published it, making it hard to delete. It is the kind of factoid that users expect to find on Wikipedia. And she seems at least to have moved at one time in intersecting circles with those of Hitler's Austrian youth. However, given the paucity of evidence of a relationship beyond mere acquaintance, and the probability that Kubizek misremembered, distorted, or exaggerated events under whatever pressures/incentives affected a youthful acquaintence of Hitler's when writing a post-War memoir more than 4 decades after the events he describes, it may be better to confine this withing the article in the section on the memoir than have it as an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good argument for redirect, which I can accept.--Smerus (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my feeling is that the importance of Rabatsch was not based on the real person, but on Hitler's ideal of her. In fact, many sources do not give a last name, only calling her Stefanie. However, "Stefanie" has, in my opinion, been the subject of many in depth analyses. I've added a short section to the article discussing these analyses based on Zalampas' discussion of the research, citing, in addition to Zalampas, Werner Maser, Robert G. L. Waite, Bradley F. Smith, and Franz Jetzinger, all very notable Hitler biographers (note, I did not find Smith's work, and only cite it as being cited by Zalampas [based on say where you got it]).[2] Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the only importance of this supposed relationship (and we have no evidence that there was any such relationship from either of those involved in it, only the allegations of Kubizek) was 'Hitler's ideal of Stefanie', then she does not deserve an article in her own right. Zalampas's self-published book is scarcely a reliable source or opinion - she simply mashes up the comments of others in the context of Adlerian psychoanalysis. (See the review of her book here - which by the way also comments on the book's numerous spelling mistakes and "glaring factual errors", some of which are listed there). I don't feel this book can be regarded as a respectable source. I would like to see some evidence that the other authors named have given any 'in depth analysis' of this supposed relationship - as far as I can see they just mention Kubizek's story in passing.--Smerus (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "deserve an article", inclusion isn't based on good behavior. I'm also not convinced that the book was self-published, it was published by Bowling Green University Popular Press, now owned by the University of Wisconsin Press, I think. My guess (based on the Acknowledgements) is the book is based on a PhD thesis written under the supervision of Jay Kloner at the University of Louisville, so I wouldn't consider it a terrible source in spite of a negative review. If the question is whether or not Maser[3], Waite[4], Smith[5], Jetzinger[6][7], Trevor-Roper, and Kershaw[8] give the subject significant coverage, I think they do and invite you to look at those sources. I also want to suggest that the discussion of the analysis of Rabatsch may be appropriate for the article, Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, and if the consensus were that she is not notable, that this article might be redirected to that one. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing these 'sources', but the snippets that I find from Google books all suggest that the writers believe Kubizek was untruthful and that the relationship with 'Stefanie' may have been a complete fantasy. I think your suggestion of a redirect to Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, and an additional section about 'Stefanie' there, is very constructive and I would support it if you wish to propose it formally.--Smerus (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read in the text about historian's perspectives of Rabatsch in the article and in the sources themselves, the sources do not all believe her to be a complete fantasy. Some believe that she may have been overemphasized, while others think Kubizek's writing is more truthful. One or two take a middle road, that Kubizek could have been making something out of very little, but that the episode is illustrative of the types of influences Hitler had during that period. There is nothing wrong with an article about which there is only one or few primary sources (analyses do look at more than just Kubizek, after all), given that there are multiple secondary or tertiary sources, so I don't see why it matters that Kubizek is the main primary source and that he is unreliable. Prominent historians find her story deserves in depth analysis, so per GNG, she seems to me a suitable subject for inclusion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to all these sources save via Google books which only gives snippets. These snippets however do not give me the impression that these sources deal 'in depth' with 'Stefanie'. It looks to me like thwey deal with her just in passing in a sentence. Can you please give indication of whether they actually do treat the topic 'in depth' - a paragraph - a chapter - or what? If the consensus is that Kubizek's narrative - whether truthful or invented - is indicative of something in Hitler's psyche, then in fact this indicates that your proposal to make the article a link to Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler is the correct path. The fact remains that we know almost nothing about the subject of this article - only that she (perhaps) gave rise to a disturbance in Hitler's mentality. 'Stefanie' thus continues to fail the WP guidelines for notability.--Smerus (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working from memory and the google books links: Maser's mention is only a few sentences across a couple paragraphs; Stefanie is one of the themes of Waite's book, 178-180 is a subsection titled "Stefanie: The Unapproachable Love", and Stefanie is a repeated theme in that entire chapter, "The Child as Father to the Man"; Smith cites Jetzigner in a brief rejection of Stefanie in footnotes, but he does point out that Reinhold Hanisch is a second primary source about Stefanie after Kubizek (I have not seen what Hanisch wrote/said); The four pages from Jetzinger I cite are a solid section of a chapter about Stefanie; Kershaw, who was in the article already and which I didn't add, gives Stefanie a couple sentences across a couple paragraphs; Trevor-Roper is writing, I think, in an introduction to the Kubizek book, and I don't know what it says; Zalampas' discussion is largely in footnotes, but includes, I think, two paragraphs in the text; Hamann, who is more biographical and less psycho-analytical, gives Stefanie about three pages across two areas; Donald writes in a book not about Hitler in particular, "The first to find herself the focus of Hitler's attentions was Stephanie Rabatsch of Linz in 1905 (Hitler was then 17) and she is significant only in that Hitler wrongly thought her Jewish, yet did not see this as a problem". Hamann, Zalampas, Jetzinger, and especially Waite give Stefanie more than passing coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material about Rabatsch is founded on a memoir published post-WWII by a one-time Hitler cronie; which is why I continue to think that a redirect to August Kubizek is the best way to present this material. A redirect will set the entire fabric of tenuous conjecture - and Note that all material regarding a Hitler-Rabatsch relationship is based on speculation that surfaced after Hitler's death - within an intelligible context. A redirect also helps minimize the inevitably ongoing problems with misleading users with a lede that now reads" "Hitler fell in love with her after she passed by him during her daily daughter-mother stroll in Linz, glancing at him." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It feels to me that you aren't addressing the GNG claim and are understating the amount of primary sources the secondary sources use. First, Hamann, Zalampas, Jetzinger, and Waite give her, I feel, in depth coverage. And second, Kubizek and Smith cite Hanisch and Hamann and Jetzinger cite an interview with Rabatch by Georg Stefan Troller and Axel Corti for their 1973 documentary Ein junger Mann aus dem Innviertel. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim "in-depth coverage" when you don't even know when she died. This article isn't about Stefanie, the person. What we have is an article about Hitler's infatuation with a girl named Stefanie. That's what was written. I stand by my claim of INVALIDBIO. Let whomever wants to keep this argue to WP:USERFY and they can rewrite this to focus on Hitler's fascination with this girl, because that's what the sources discuss. (I don't think the crush he had is notable, anyway.) Chris Troutman (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some value in retaining a short section and the search term, because Wikipedia has a noble role enabling users to check out alternative facts that circulate out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: The quality of the sources you cite so assiduously continues to cast doubt on the viability of this article. All of these authors are simply speculating on the (alternative-)facts set out by the dubious Kubizek. This is exemplified in the ludicrous quote you give from your source Donald: "The first to find herself the focus of Hitler's attentions was Stephanie Rabatsch of Linz in 1905 (Hitler was then 17) and she is significant only in that Hitler wrongly thought her Jewish, yet did not see this as a problem". There is not a shred of evidence outside Kubizek that Hitler ever knew of Rabatsch, let alone that he thought she was Jewish. This is a nonsense story which does not deserve an article; any mention on WP can only be justified, as E.M.Gregory says, to assist in identification of fantasies and alternative facts.--Smerus (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with this comment by User:Smerus. How do we draw the eyes of highly experienced editors here so that we can resolve this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much of the story of her life as Kubizek told is probably not very true. In fact, I expanded the "Scholarly reactions" section", which now better reflects that. I also agree that Rabatsch was not Jewish. I do not know what Hitler thought about the matter. I think if kept, the article should be more careful in wording to make it clear that most of what it says is based on Kubizek and may be unreliable. To me, these issues seem to be about content and not about notability, and I agree that the content could be improved in those ways and others.

All that said, I think she passes the bar in terms of coverage by secondary sources for GNG. From your wording, I think you propose that because her story was largely fabricated, her case is slightly different. I think WP:FRINGE (and WP:NFICT) is a great guideline to bring up for this article, both in terms of content and notability. I hadn't thought about notability from the perspective of fringe, and agree that from that perspective the case isn't as great. In particular, NFRINGE says, "References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." The rest of NFRINGE seems to suggest this case is fine. That sentence could be read to agree with the perspective that, since most secondary source references to Rabatsch are primarily in the context of a discussion of Kubizek, a redirect to Kubizek makes sense. Also, since many of the references to Rabatsch are really about Hitler's psyche, mention of that could go to Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, and the two articles should link to each other in their discussion of Rabatsch.

With all this in mind, I think that if made a redirect, the redirect should point to Kubizek, but some of the analysis material could go to the psychopathography article, should the editors of that article deem it useful. My !vote and first preference is still keep, for the GNG reasons I have already brought and because I think the coverage (barely) satisfies NFRINGE because there are multiple primary sources and the secondary sources discuss multiple aspects of the story. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Kubizek is unreliable that should be spelled out (with citations) early in the article. Statements based on his book should be then prefaced by the disclaimer "According to Kubizek ..." so it is clear that much of the article consists of alternative facts. But major sources – the Daily Mail, Der Spiegel, ZDF – have repeated Kubizek's tale of unrequited love. It has thus become a notable meme. Sufficient independent sources have commented on the subject to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be deleted, but in the meantime i have edited it on the lines you suggest.--Smerus (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the section on "Significance of the story" to itemize the various writers who have discussed the story and to name their books. It would help to also cite some source that says Kubizek is unreliable, and that no serious historian cites him, not just make an unsourced assertion to that effect. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, the subject is notable only for the young Adolf Hitler's alleged infatuation with her, and the only source for that infatuation is his boyhood companion August Kubizek. However, given Hitler's huge historical impact almost any detail of his life is significant. Many writers on Hitler have chosen to accept Kubizek's account and to discuss the unrequited love in their works. No evidence has been given that Kubizek is an unreliable source, but even if he were that would not affect the notability of the story. Readers of any of the many books that discuss Stefanie Rabatsch may want to find out more about her. This article serves that purpose. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has twice removed well-sourced and relevant content from this article, which I have restored. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone Hitler loved is notable - though especially in this case because it helps historians favour a later date for the origins of Hitler's pathological antisemitism.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment shows the problem with keeping this article. We have no evidence that Hitler "loved" the the subject of this article. We have speculation recorded many years later. Mere speculation, and the speculation is by a Hitler acquaintance who would have had motivation to exaggerate the facts, even if memoirs could be relied upon for facts. I still support a redirect because keeping gives the appearance that this is a story supported by evidence. It is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August Kubizek was more than an acquaintance. Hitler and Kubizek were close friends. They even shared a flat together in Vienna. Yes, like all memoirs, it should be handled with care. But Kubizek seems to be a generally trustworthy if rather naïve source.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Many reputable historians have discussed the subject in depth. Kubizek is a primary source, a player in the drama, and the historians are secondary sources. Most accept Kubizek's account, but some downplay or dismiss it. The article tries to give a balanced view. The question here is not whether the story is true but whether it is notable. True or false, the story effortlessly meets the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The title is the natural search term for someone who reads about the subject in one of the many books that discuss her and wants to find out more. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned above, as while "Anyone he loved" is not quite a convincing sign in how we base articles, there's enough information to suggest significance in information here, but there's still not the convincing for an independent article; nominator has also concurred with redirecting. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "merge" outcome may be considered if an article is very short or duplicates information in another article. That does not apply here. The question is whether the subject has been addressed directly and in detail by a number of independent sources. The section on Scholarly reactions demonstrates that it has. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with a merge is that Franz Jetzinger's 3,444 character article would be overwhelmed by the 9,166 characters of text about Stefanie Rabatsch, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with Jetzinger. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks OK to me now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources with sufficient coverage to meet the notability guidelines. It is irrelevant what actions an article's subject takes or fails to take or how many iotas of difference we can detect. WP:INVALIDBIO does not apply because significant coverage is to be found on Rabatsch herself. No one is arguing that coverage about Hitler suffices. The redirect/merge target suggested would be inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the article contains the sentence: "Little is known about Stefanie's overall life" and it's cited. We don't know when she died, if she ever had children, or really any details of her life after 1913. We don't know where she was born, for sure. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people from Homer to Banksy have information missing from their bios. They are notable because a lot has been written about them. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 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.