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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civil courage (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)

WP:DICTIONARY this article appears to be a definition of a word, which has not established notability beyond the fact that it has a defined meaning. Other issues with article text include primary sourcing and using Wikipedia as a source (De. Wiki) Edaham (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Way beyond WP:DICTDEF at this point already. Re sourcing, it is lazily/unsuitable done at this point, but if you look at the German article [1], of which this seems to be a straight port, you will see that there's actually a lot of sources - none inline, as they sadly insist on doing on deWiki; but this is without doubt a notable concept. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is an over-write of a redirect and this content could very easily have been integrated into Courage. The standards of en.Wikipedia differ from its German counterpart and I am not in a position to judge the merits of the german version. However, here it has no independent sourcing to establish notability and fails WP:GNG. It reads like WP:OR and is an unneeded fork.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Nominating reviewer) - I did the cursory searches before nominating. While there may be some info in DeWiki (I'm not German and cannot speak the language), no obvious results in my google search for English lang. secondary sourcing seriously validated this as a notable concept beyond a dictionary def. Also as an English Wikipedia editor and reviewer, I'm not primarily concerned with what other wikis say about it per WP:USERGEN. I'm also not convinced that its widespread use as a concept in German, even if sufficiently sourced in German, makes it suitable for an EnWiki article, unless perhaps it is frequently used in translated English language secondary academic sources. Currently there's no evidence of this on the page, nothing secondary has been contributed to the page and nothing is readily available to validate its fork from courage, where people may feasibly be looking for information on the term "civil courage" and to where this page should redirect. Edaham (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I am herewith stating that there demonstrably exists a large amount of specific, in-depth coverage in non-English sources. Whether you guys like it or not, that does satisfy sourcing requirements (sources need be neither English, nor online. Remember that one?) Lemme illustrate:

• Andreas H. Apelt, Heide Gebhardt, Eckard Jesse (Hrsg.): Zivilcourage gestern und heute: Pflicht oder Kür? Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle (Saale) 2014, ISBN 978-3-95462-319-8
• Gerd-Bodo von Carlsburg, Karl-Heinz Dammer, Helmut Wehr (Hrsg.): „Hätte ich doch nicht weggeschaut!“ – Zivilcourage früher und heute. Brigg Pädagogik, Augsburg 2011, ISBN 978-3-87101-708-7
• Johannes Czwalina: Wer mutig ist, der kennt die Angst. Zivilcourage statt Opportunismus. Brendow, Moers 2008, ISBN 978-3-86506-212-3.
• Dieter Deiseroth: Zivilcourage am Arbeitsplatz – Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen. In: Hermann Reichold, Albert Löhr, Gerhard Blickle (Hrsg.): Wirtschaftsbürger oder Marktopfer? Hampp, München 2001, ISBN 3-87988-541-9.
• Stefan Frohloff: Gesicht zeigen! Handbuch für Zivilcourage. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main 2001, ISBN 3-593-36807-2
• Wolfgang Heuer: Couragiertes Handeln. zu Klampen, Lüneburg 2002, ISBN 3-934920-13-6.
• Max Hollweg: Es ist unmöglich von dem zu schweigen, was ich erlebt habe: Zivilcourage im Dritten Reich. Mit einem Vorwort von Detlef Garbe. 3. Aufl. Mindt, Bielefeld 2000, ISBN 3-00-002694-0.
• Kai Jonas, Margarete Boos, Veronika Brandstätter (Hrsg.): Zivilcourage trainieren: Theorie und Praxis. Hogrefe, Göttingen 2006, ISBN 3-8017-1826-3.
• Ulrich Kühne (Hrsg.): Mutige Menschen. Frauen und Männer mit Zivilcourage. Vorwort von Ulrich Wickert. Elisabeth Sandmann Verlag, München 2006, ISBN 3-938045-13-2.
• Dieter Lünse, Katty Nöllenburg, Jörg Kowalczyk, Florian Wanke: Zivilcourage können alle! Ein Trainingshandbuch für Schule und Jugendarbeit. Verl. an der Ruhr, Mülheim an der Ruhr 2011, ISBN 978-3-8346-0813-0.
• Gerd Meyer: Lebendige Demokratie. Zivilcourage und Mut im Alltag. Forschungsergebnisse und Praxisperspektiven. 2. Auflage. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2007, ISBN 3-8329-0444-1.
• Gerd Meyer, Ulrich Dovermann, Siegfried Frech, Günther Gugel (Hrsg.): Zivilcourage lernen. Analysen – Modelle – Arbeitshilfen. 2. Auflage. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung/ Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg, 2007, ISBN 3-89331-537-3.
• Gerd Meyer: Mut und Zivilcourage. Grundlagen und gesellschaftliche Praxis. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Opladen Berlin Toronto 2014 ISBN 978-3-8474-0172-8 (Paperback) 978-3-8474-0423-1 (eBook)
• Gerald Praschl, Marco Hecht: Ich habe Nein gesagt – Zivilcourage in der DDR. Kai Homilius Verlag, Berlin 2002, ISBN 3-89706-891-5.
• Rob Riemen: Adel des Geistes – Ein vergessenes Ideal. Siedler, München 2008, ISBN 978-3-88680-948-6.
• Siegbert A. Warwitz: Vom Sinn des Wagens. Warum Menschen sich gefährlichen Herausforderungen stellen. In: DAV (Hrsg.): Berg 2006. München-Innsbruck-Bozen 2005. Seiten 96–111. ISBN 3-937530-10-X
• Wolfram Wette: Zivilcourage unter extremen Bedingungen. Empörte, Helfer und Retter in der Wehrmacht. Freiburger Rundbrief 1/2004.
• Eva-Maria Zehrer (Red.): Ein ganz normaler Tag – Gedanken über Zivilcourage. Sächsischen Landeszentrale für politische Bildung, Dresden 2007.(PDF)

...and looky, there's even a fair amount of scholarly English sources: on the first page of this Scholar search, I count three English-language papers specifically dealing with the subject. - We can discuss the necessity of a separate page vs covering the subject at Courage, but source- or notability-wise, you have no leg to stand on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, English-language books: [2]. Now that was some easy WP:BEFORE. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand German could you please post the relevant sources over to the article's talk page where other speakers of the language can validate them? I understand that you may be involved in the article, but a clear outline of work to be done to avoid deletion has been laid out. One of those pieces of work is to sufficiently source the article. You are right that the sources don't have to be online or in English, but they definitely do have to be present in the article. At the moment it simply appears to be a piece of OR sourced from a website of an award. Thank you for your patience and contributions. Edaham (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be far better to have this conversation on the article's talk page. If there's a sufficient wealth of information to support this article's creation and this info is placed on the talk page, it is highly likely that whoever reviews this AfD will decide to keep the article and tag it for improvement. Lastly, I did check the article's potential for alternative sourcing, and obviously the term gets used a lot, but this in its self doesn't make it a notable concept, and the page as it is looks like a promotional page for this organization: [3] Edaham (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left some notes on sourcing on the talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While some languages may warrant a separate article on civil vs military courage, English does not.--Pontificalibus 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A dictionary definition where the main topic is covered elsewhere (Courage). -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the award page - s there such a thing as a Promo fork. A redirect to either the Award or Courage is best - I prefer the latter.PRehse (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to userspace' if creator so wishes, to allow time to create a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)leaning keep even though article as it stands fails WP:NOTESSAY and is in desperate need of editing for sourcing and encyclopedic tone, at present, it reads like an ADVERT for a definition put forward by Civil Courage Prize sponsors. Nevertheless, there is ant least one academic article in English, 2007, Civil courage: Implicit theories, related concepts, and measurement, and this 2014 article in DW Civil courage: You don't need to be a social Rambo by a social psychologist who is not among the co-authors of the 2007 academic paper. But a JSTOR search gets 339 hits, the first 3 of which use the term "civil courage" in the title: Civil Courage and Human Dignity: How to Regain Respect for the Fundamental Values of Western Democracy; Gabrielle Giffords: A Study in Civil Courage, albeit the 3rd sounds äußerst German, Civil Courage ("Zivilcourage"): The Case of Knut Wicksell - except Wicksell was Swedish, and the author teaches at the U. of Stockholm. You add that to book titles like Intellectuals and the Public Good: Creativity and Civil Courage, (Cambridge University Press,) and Civil courage : a response to contemporary conflict and prejudice (published in New York by Peter Lang (publisher), and it looks like a valid and notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would that not be a good candidate for move to draft then? Edaham (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Move to draft; and - if that doesn't work out - no prejudice against re-creation in the event that someone, someday creates an encyclopedic article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be on board with that. Although the recent attempt of the originator to blank the article in a fit of ghastly remorse doesn't bode well for its future if draftified :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ultimately abandoned then someone will speedy G13 it, no objection to giving draftication a chance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the references above attest, this is a very well-known concept in German (as Zivilcourage), and also covered in English. There is certainly enough material here for an article. Sandstein 10:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references given and many in the German version show this topic received substantial coverage in literature and is worthy of article. The article, even at its present state, it actually passes DICDEF and can do more with improvement since sources exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can read German. I don't have access to the printed German sources, but I read the online citations under "Weblinks" in de:Zivilcourage. These two are WP:RS, and are specifically about the subject: "Willkommen auf dem Zivilcourage-Portal!" (University of Zurich); and "Sieben Tipps für mehr Zivilcourage " (Süddeutsche Zeitung). I googled, and found: "Zivilcourage - Alle Artikel und Hintergründe" (Der Spiegel); "Zivilcourage zeigen" (Bundespolizei); "Zivilcourage" (de:Zeitschrift für Psychologie); "Der Mut des Bürgers" (Bayerischer Rundfunk); and Zivilcourage: Wie der Staat seine Bürger im Stich lässt (Michael Wolffsohn, a 2016 book). My 5 finds were among the top 13 hits.

IMO the English article as it stands is rather weak, but the subject - discussed in the media, in academic circles, and by the police - without doubt passes WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2018 (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.