Talk:Martin Adolf Bormann

message: Furniture made of skin and bones? What the hell are they smoking?
:You mean the Nazis?  I think they did it without being high on drugs.  But if anyone doubts that the Nazis did such things, I'm afraid it's all too well documented. - 20.138.246.89 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the people that make up stories to remain interesting to others. 105.0.0.80 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Furniture

message: Why on earth would Martin Bormann not be a notable person? He is the son of one of the top Nazis. The article should stay and the "notability" template should be removed. --Thorwald (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had put the notability tag, basically, per WP:NOTINHERITED principle, also similar to what WP:BLP1E means: the fact that he is related to somebody famous does not, in and of itself, make him notable. If there is significant coverage of him personally by reliable sources (which is the WP:BIO standard), that would be a different matter. It is not clear from this article, in its current form, if sufficient coverage of this sort exists. There are a couple of links in the article which do provide some coverage, but they does not seem sufficient to me to establish notability. If there is more, some extra references need to be added, and then there would be no problem. Nsk92 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, those WP-links you point to are only guidelines, not rules. As an editor of Wikipedia for over five years, I have always been (and probably always will be) an inclusionist. There are many "minor" kings, princes, etc. that are barely remembered by history . . . but every last one of them should have an article on Wikipedia. The goal, from the start, for Wikipedia was to be the sum of all human knowledge and history. You might not think Martin Bormann is notable, but I do. I am interested in what happened to the children of Nazis and I think other Wikipedians will also be. --Thorwald (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some google searching and found a NYT article about him and added it to the references section, together with the Spectator article that is cited in the text. It still seems rather thin to me but I removed the notability tag. Hopefully someone can find more references and add them. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability?

message: However, something seems rather wonky with the photograph of him used in the article. The image is not from the Commons and there is a somewhat strange explanation of the copyright situation at the image page It says that the image copyright belonged to the Yad Vashem museum and that the museum has released the copyright. However no information or documentation to confirm this is provided. I did a bit of searching at the Yad Vashem site but did not find anything relevant there. Sounds rather suspecious to me, especially since the image uploader, User:RachelBrown has a notice on her userpage saying that the user is banned and indef-blocked for sockpuppetry or something like that. Don't know what that was about but it does not look good. My knowledge of the copyright rules here is fairly limited but, as I understand it, WP:NFC says that non-free photographs of living people should not be used and that "fair use" clause does not apply to them. So if this image is not free, it should not be used here. If it is free, I would have thought that a better documentation of the copyright release would be required. Nsk92 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since :User:RachelBrown uploaded the image and she has been banned, it doesn't fare well for the copyright status (although, I know nothing of her "banning"). I also know nothing about this image. --Thorwald (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright