Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany
Points of interest related to Germany on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Germany. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Germany|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.
watch |
Germany
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Patrick Schulz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable wrestler with no sources in the article Niafied (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, United States of America, and Germany. sig
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Principality of Seborga. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nina Menegatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is really bad, it's presented as an actual biography of a politician/monarch when the country in question doesn't actually exist. It presents the subject as holding actual positions and titles, which do not exist. Not to mention that the page uses a few primary sources from the micronation itself. Presenting a micronation roleplayer as a real head of state is misinformation at best. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Italy. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- weak keep - there are a few fairly long media reports in addition to those on the page. There may also be more in non-English publications. On that basis, in my opinion the GNG is met. JMWt (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the content from reliable secondary sources to Principality of Seborga. Insufficient independent coverage for a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as subject meets GNG (mostly established in non-English sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], although English sources also exist: [11][12][13]). Notability is not determined by the validity of her claims/titles/positions/offices. Many articles exist on pretenders and claimants to defunct and non-existant monarchies. The question is if Menegatto is has received significant media coverage, and the answer to that is yes. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Principality of Seborga. She is no more notable than her so-called predecessors, Giorgio and Marcello. Keivan.fTalk 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect Per the user above. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect I sincerely disagree with Di's and Celia Homeford's arguments, however I believe it indeed deserves a redirect as per the user above. Demagorastalk 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect I don't see how she's notable on her own. She can be adequately covered on the main page for Seborga. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makersite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hits the WP:SERIESA formula pretty exactly - of the 12 citations on this article, 6 are funding announcements, 1 is a short uncritical profile of the CEO, 1 is a venturebeat article with a comment from the CEO on something unrelated to the company, 1 is a marketing release for a company, and the other 3 just acknowledge that the company launched an Autodesk CAD plugin while talking about something else.
No coverage which goes deeper than stating that a particular business deal took place. BrigadierG (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Internet, Software, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing in the standard BEFORE, nothing in the usual databases, doesn't look like there's anything useful in NONENG either. Much too soon to have an article, if we ever should. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom, mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage of funding, fails WP:NCORP C F A 💬 22:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Surprise! (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a short film. The notability claim here, that it won an award at a regional film festival, would be fine if the article were properly sourced -- but the "awards" criterion in NFILM is looking for top internationally-prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists, so winning an award at the Seattle film festival isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from actually having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try to find a source for that; SIFF is about one level down from the aforementioned. It is certainly not a "regional film festival". - Jmabel | Talk 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The source for a film festival award cannot be said film festival's own self-published website about itself, as that isn't independent of the statement — the source has to be a journalist-written newspaper or magazine article, or a book, that shows that the film festival's award announcements are considered newsworthy and/or historically significant by people other than the film festival's own staff. (The awards at the top-level likes of Cannes or TIFF make films notable because those are awards that get reported by media as news — they're special because media tell us they're special by treating them as newsworthy, not just because we like them more than we like smaller film festivals.) But so far the source you've added is SIFF's own website, not a piece of GNG-building third-party coverage — and even if you can find a more GNG-worthy source for that, we would still need to see other GNG-worthy sourcing about the film alongside that anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- We are not citing for the importance of SIFF. We are citing for whether they gave the award. An instutition's own site is the preferred source for an an official action by that institution. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The source for a film festival award cannot be said film festival's own self-published website about itself, as that isn't independent of the statement — the source has to be a journalist-written newspaper or magazine article, or a book, that shows that the film festival's award announcements are considered newsworthy and/or historically significant by people other than the film festival's own staff. (The awards at the top-level likes of Cannes or TIFF make films notable because those are awards that get reported by media as news — they're special because media tell us they're special by treating them as newsworthy, not just because we like them more than we like smaller film festivals.) But so far the source you've added is SIFF's own website, not a piece of GNG-building third-party coverage — and even if you can find a more GNG-worthy source for that, we would still need to see other GNG-worthy sourcing about the film alongside that anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. A lot of the material here is in German, and a lot of it appears to have come narrowly too early for widespread digitization. Here is unquestionably relevant coverage in a German film studies book. I believe this Google Books snippet view is actually of a magazine article reviewing its release as part of a DVD. Finally, I only have a citation so I can't evaluate the source, but there appears to be a Spanish-language scholarly article about this short film: Meier, A. "Sorpresas educativas en Surprise de Veit Helmer." Posibilidades del análisis cinematográfico (1era ed., Vol. 1, pp. 365-373). Secretaría de Educación del gobierno del Estado de México (2015). Lubal (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've added another citation (from shortfilm.de) for the film having had 48 festival invitations and 26 awards. Surely that is enough. And, no, I'm not working on this further. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: new sources added and mentioned; awards. A redirect to the director should be considered anyway, so, opposed to deletion.
(Will try to add things)(added coverage in various languages including English, more exists)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 action.. The minimally-participated discussion here was unanimous to merge with Glossary of German military terms. But without a nomination to delete, AfD is not required. Any editor is welcome to merge as suggested, or to discuss a different editorial approach on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Adjustierung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It seems like this article should be merged into articles about the German and Austrian militaries of various eras, which generally include discussion of uniforms. Just because there is a German word for "military uniform" doesn't mean that word is a distinct topic. We already have military uniform; the military uniforms of German-speaking countries (as opposed to Germany and Austria and Switerland, separately) don't make a natural subtopic of that. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the words listed could just be added to Glossary of German military terms. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge terms into Glossary of German military terms as per Beland. Ingratis (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- One Night in Yoshiwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is one source given, but amount of detail given could define the term "passing mention". I searched for some more sources and found several more passing mentions (e.g. "Barbara Dju is possibly best known for her role in Eine Nacht in Yoshiwara"). XabqEfdg (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Emmerich Hanus: Not opposed(changing) to Keep (for example this brief notula ; Abel in the cast; a 2-paragraph review by ...Billy Wilder (In the Italian translation of the collection of his early work)) ; opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)- The first reference does not seem to be significant coverage. As far as I can tell it indicates that Abel was in the cast (as an aside, I think WP:NOTINHERITED applies to your second point), but does not go into any detail. The review is interesting and, as you say, may indicate more sources at the time, but it is quite short.
- I am unsure about redirecting, because the director is not necessarily what people will be looking for. I also note that almost all of the information in this article is quite adequately included in Hanus's article. XabqEfdg (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I am unsure about redirecting, because the director is not necessarily what people will be looking for
. All right, then let's Keep it. (The footnote mentions the film in relation with Metropolis and Thea von Harbou) (But there is no better target for a redirect from a film than the page about its director imv.) Maile has added sources: thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable director and actors. Likely to have been more significant coverage in RS at the time. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree and the Billy Wilder review is an indication of that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I added a Google Book source to this. The source is in the German language, but it's a legitimate source. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per the review and reliable books coverage identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Axel Downard-Wilke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people, with very little (if any) independent sourcing. See the first nomination which was speedy kept as it was linked from the main page's DYK section. It was promptly removed after the COIN case was brought up. To me this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. wound theology◈ 08:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, based on encountering what I consider significant coverage in two profiles [14] (in this one he is rendered as "Wilke" rather than "Downard-Wilke") and [15]. This combined with the less significant but also more than trivial coverage across sources cited in the article leads me to consider the topic notable. I'm also perplexed by the OP's comment that
this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion
. This article wasn't created or edited by its subject (who would be the "self" in self-promotion); the COIN case is about someone who knows Downard-Wilke interpersonally having contributed to the article. Downard-Wilke, who is disclosed to be Schwede66 on Wikipedia, has never edited this article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- I don't really want to go too deep into source debates for reasons stated in my comments below, but you might want to read my original nomination statement from the first AfD – certainly that first Stuff article you linked is not an independent source. It was written to promote this edit-a-thon to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stuff itself, which Downard-Wilke appears to have played some role in organising. This does call into question more broadly whether Stuff articles can be considered independent of Downard-Wilke.
- The apparent
less significant but also more than trivial coverage
you refer to I believe amounts to a notability bomb when carefully investigated – although there are many sources, none turn out to contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not self-promotion but it is a prolific DYK contributor being asked to make an article about a prominent Wikipedian and get it on the front page. Obviously we don't know who did the asking. It all stinks, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Original AfD nominator here. I think this follow-up AfD is slightly premature. There is an evolving discussion underway at COIN, where Schwede66 has mentioned a cache of 50-odd potential sources for review. It would be better to take some time to properly go over these sources before going straight back to AfD. Plus, this way interested participants would not have to split their energy between content and conduct discussions, and so we can get all the facts right about the circumstances behind the article's creation (for example, I agree with Hydrangeans that calling it "self-promotion", given what we know right now, is tenuous because Schwede66 hasn't touched the article).
As it stands I would prefer this be suspended or closed procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination once other discussions have taken their course and Schwede66's sources been thoroughly reviewed.– Teratix ₵ 15:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Echoing the two previous comments. I feel this AFD is a bit rushed, and I don't see reasons why it may be labelled as self-promotion yet. AFA notability is concerned, the sub meets borderline notability IMO. X (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, notability is clearly determined by multiple reliable news articles on the subject from The Star and Stuff. Both outlets are reliable independent sources in New Zealand. Before anyone questions whether I have a CoI, I have met Axel once in an online Wikipedia meetup call, and all of my interactions with him have been on and about Wikipedia. However, outside of Wikipedia I have heard his name mentioned in several places related to urban planning in Christchurch. He is certainly a notable figure in this city, and I also consider him notable enough for a wikipedia article.
- David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- As Teratix pointed out, the Stuff article is not an independent source. Not sure about The Star. wound theology◈ 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are other Stuff articles that establish notability, particularly on the macron debate. Believe it or not that was newsworthy in NZ. When I tell people I edit Wikipedia, people ask me about that specific topic. Wilke was a fairly central figure in the coverage of that debate., as established by the sources. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- As Teratix pointed out, the Stuff article is not an independent source. Not sure about The Star. wound theology◈ 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep -- a prolific contributor surely has achieved enough notoriety to deserve an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk • contribs)
- Keep at this time - on the surface appears to just meet WP:GNG. This does seem like it is better to be reviewed at COIN in the first instance and improve things from there, and a renomination can be done after that process is complete. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have now had a chance to properly review Schwede66's sources and they have changed my opinion on the matter – I believe there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources to keep the article. (Critically, at the time of my original AfD nomination I had not seen either of the sources I view as demonstrating notability). That is not to say it will not need significant attention (about 40% of its citations are to non-independent sources, suggesting in its current state undue weight may be placed on certain aspects), but it passes our basic notability test. As for the particular sources demonstrating notability:
- Although I do not believe the 2020 Stuff article is independent because it appears to have been written to promote an edit-a-thon on the company, on reflection I do not think this judgement of non-independence should necessarily extend to an article on a different issue written by different authors two years later, even if it is the same outlet. Although the article is chiefly about the macrons debate itself, there is some decent coverage of Downard-Wilke and his actions, enough to contribute to passing GNG/NBIO.
- I mentioned source 6, a piece from The Star about his regional council campaign, in my original AfD nomination as difficult to verify (unavailable online) but unlikely to contribute to notability given various reasonable inferences from its context of production. However, Schwede66 had a copy of the article and it turned out to be a bit more substantial than I expected, providing just enough depth and context I believe it contributes to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources appears to meet WP:SIGCOV. Apart from other things, I a more concerned about the publications which I can say meets WP:NAUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Daniel Paasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:PROMO article creator wordlessly moved back from draftspace with no substantial coverage BrigadierG (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Pirate Party Germany. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anja Hirschel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject currently doesn’t pass NPOL as city councilor, and is only contesting for a seat in the EU Parliament. Sources were insufficient to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Could potentially redirect to Pirate Party Germany and add a mention there, but I can't see any coverage meeting BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Tagesspiegel and SWP sources are sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pirate Party Germany: Not much for GNG and NPOL. Considering WP:ATD. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hold – We'll have results from the European elections by tomorrow evening. As lead candidate, even of a small party, she is fairly likely to be elected. I know we aren't a crystal ball, but I don't think waiting 24 hours is too much to ask. If it is, my !vote should be read as a keep. Toadspike [Talk] 00:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Toadspike that’s fair enough. Please ping me here if the result comes out too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eissporthalle Iserlohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs on the page for many years. Nothing to add from the article on de.wiki. not seeing much else which could be considered against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Germany. JMWt (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Iserlohn Roosters, whose home stadium this is - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Eastmain. The Kip (contribs) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Improvements during AfD clear up any doubts about notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Stephan Welk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. While the sources provided all seem to be on the up-and-up, the overwhelming majority of them either are to websites that are now up for sale, return 404 errors, or flat-out can't be connected to. The sources that do properly function are all useless for notability - two are hits in catalogues for a book he wrote and the third is a non-sequitur. A search for sources brings up two Der Spiegel pieces about diplomatic document fraud and nothing else accessible or reliable. I will note that there is a BLP/N thread about this article (which is how I found it) but my putting it up for AfD is due to the sourcing woes and not because of the thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Was any effort made to recover the dead links from the Internet Archive or other archival services? The two cited sources for this individual's influence on the global cocoa market, for example, are recoverable: [16][17], although I can't vouch for the reliability of the media outlet. That is a singular outlet, however; Bayern-Depesche's masthead notes that it is owned by "POPULAREN Network GmbH", so while these sources are independent of the article subject, they're likely not distinct sources for counting such things. Meanwhile, there's definitely Der Spiegel coverage, but some of it has involves a then-ongoing trial. I couldn't quickly determine if there was a conviction, or even if it had concluded. Lubal (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I just put the Bayern-Depesche archived link into Google Translate and got borderline-word-salad off of it, but it's comprehensible enough for me to grok it. And it's useless for notability (too sparse). The article itself seems a confused mess, hardly touching on Welk and his actions in favour of descriptions of Sao Tome and Principe and a chocolatier associated with him. Google Translate ignores the Popularen source entirely, so I can't assess that (language barrier). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the sources cited here. Of course, I'm doing a general search based on the search options in the AFD, so am unlikely to find information in less common sources. Of the cited sources (the few that are still live) there are some name checks ("Mitarbeiter der Vertretung", Moneyhouse). There are a very few articles about his diplomatic service (Metosa, Popularen) but these are brief and not in depth. Lamona (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Others
Categories
Deletion reviews
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
Redirects
Templates
See also
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Germany related pages including deletion discussions