Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

Jump to navigation Jump to search
AZ Sort.png
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia: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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia'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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
HILLBLU lente.png
 Scan for Germany related AfDs


Germany

The European Association of Ukrainians

The European Association of Ukrainians (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:ORG. 2 of the 4 sources are its own website. Gnews has nothing, and a plain google search does not appear to show any reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Bundesservice Telekommunikation

Bundesservice Telekommunikation (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Declined A7 speedy - brought to AfD instead as we are effectively dealing with an article about something that may or may not even exist. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not certain this even existed, beyond having a phone number and e-mail listed in the federal database with meaningless boilerplate language saying that they provide services. The whole article is basically about a medium blog post by Lilith Wittmann who found this unknown organization listed in the database, and a bit of coverage on the deletion discussion on the German Gpedia and some media coverage on questions to the government on whether this organization exists or existed. The questions were answered by stating this organization was never funded and by removing it from the data base. It is possible this is a front name used by some employees of a security service under the ministry of interior, like Bundesstelle für Fernmeldestatistik was used until 2014, but this is not certain. This fails the 10 year test, and sources that exist lack any depth on the organization itself, they just cover Wittmann's queries and lack of any meaningful response or information on this possible organization. Pikavoom Talk 11:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: So hang on now. We have this obscure blogger (with all of 163 followers before this flap) alleging that there is this Sooper Sekrit agency doing Sooper Sekrit things, where she has no evidence of its activities -- never mind none of its existence -- save for her own speculation. (Never mind that her blogpost ends with her talking about this nifty new tool she's developing to track such agencies down ... stay tuned!). We have a single magazine article about her finding nothing, and the magazine likewise finding nothing. Whoa. Stop the presses. Everything else are primary sources. This is an embarrassing enough failure of the GNG without it being the creation of an editor with exactly 36 mainspace edits (most of which are on a cryptocurrency article), who is surprisingly ready to call "troll" on anyone who opposes it [1].

    Whether there's anything to be found or not I leave to that blogger, who plainly has a lot of time on her hands. That her quixotic crusade merits its own Gpedia article, ummmm ... no. Ravenswing 13:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: - I couldn't find anything else, so fails WP:V per Ravenswing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sylvan (band)

AfDs for this article:
Sylvan (band) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

A previous AfD for this band was closed a few hours ago as "no consensus" because the nominator kept changing his/her mind and seems unfamiliar with the consensus process. The closing admin said No prejudice against speedy renomination so here it is. I voted to delete this band the first time, for the following reason. Despite a long career and many albums, it appears that significant and reliable coverage has eluded this band. They have a bare-bones listing at AllMusic but none of the albums have staff reviews. They get occasional unreliable blog reviews (e.g. [2], [3]) but even those are rare. Beyond that I can only find some basic retail listings, even when searching for the band's name in conjunction with the founding members' names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

YouTube in Germany

YouTube in Germany (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Redundant and not-suitable for encyclopedic entry. Might fall under WP:NOT Tame (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Action of 16 January 1916

AfDs for this article:
Action of 16 January 1916 (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 · NYT · WP Library)

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The firefight between a German cruiser and a British cargo vessel on January 16, 1916 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the SMS Möwe 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the Kriegsmarine. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 13 May 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 10 November 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 5 July 1942 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler. Keith H99 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 6 October 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 23 April 1945 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168 & USS Besugo. Penultimate addition. Keith H99 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Above items now listed in separate nomination, as requested.
Articles for deletion/Action of 23 April 1945
Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons.

Action of 12 October 1950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is particularly interesting is that the talk page acknowledges that there is no scholarly source for this engagement.
Talk:Action of 12 October 1950
I deduce it lacks significance. Final edit Keith H99 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Rename to Sinking of SS Clan Mactavish. This is a reasonable article: I expect there are Reliable sources, even if not cited in-line. Commerce raiding during WWI was severe enough to worry the British government, so that merging this inot a list article might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I see the sinking of the vessel is recorded in a chronological list as the eighth of fifteen ships sunk or captured on the first raiding voyage of SMS Möwe. Keith H99 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The last part of the article is about USS Pirate. I have cut this, and pasted it into the USS Pirate article.
One of the few citations in the article, which references the loss of two minesweepers, has been added to the Operation Wonsan article, as it was lacking an inline citation for the loss of the two minesweepers.08:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

International Academy of Science, Munich

International Academy of Science, Munich (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 · NYT · WP Library)

It was deleted per Gpedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (2nd nomination) as unnotable, and I do not see the notability as stated in WP:ORG now either, as the article is written using the texts from IAS itself, not using RSs. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Torsten Haß

Torsten Haß (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not relevant, autobiography. Heanor (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep: Concerning the notability accusation: (1) Torsten Haß "has created […] a significant or well-known work" (WP:AUTHOR) of German language librarianship, the Bibliotheken für Dummies. Cf. possessions of Bibliotheken für Dummies in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, WorldCat, part of the first external link in the Torsten Haß article. --- (2) Bibliotheken für Dummies has been "the primary subject of […] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:AUTHOR), but the text passage concerning reviews was deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle because of promo concerns. --- (3) Additional coverage of Torsten Haß plus Bibliotheken für Dummies e.g. in the following German language library journals: Bibliotheksdienst 55(2021),p.934; Bibliotheksdienst 54(2020),p.943; BuB 72(2020),p.611; Die Bücherei (archdiocese Cologne) 2019, issue12, p.3; Bibliotheken heute (LBZ RLP: library center of Rhineland-Palatinate) 2020, issue3, p.127. Some of this articles were mentioned and hyperlinked in the WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies; this article was nominated by MrsSnoozyTurtle for speedy deletion 6:30 26 September 2021 and deleted 11:00 26 September 2021 because of promo concerns… And in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this coverages in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… --- (4) The WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies also had references that Bibliotheken für Dummies is "the subject of instruction at two or more […] colleges, universities" (WP:BKCRIT)… But in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… ++++ Concerning the autobiography accusation: (1) The COI tag was by Deb. If you look at the talks, Deb asked user th0815 (<2% of the contributions to the article = "major contributor to this article"???) in his user talk if he was Torsten Haß, th0815 admitted it and proposed to delete his 2%. Deb denied. I (= major contributor to this article) was not asked the same/similar/any questions. Strange. --- (2) Specific text passages with a non-neutral POV (if existing) were not mentioned. In my opinion, th0815 should have deleted his passages, he proposed to do so, but he wasn’t allowed: "don't edit the article in future", Deb stated in the user talk th0815. --- (3) If I would be a German author, I would make an article in the German WP. Would make more sense, wouldn’t it? ++++ Concerning the comment by AleatoryPonderings: In my opinion, cross-wiki spam made months later should play no role in this discussion about notability and autobiography. Otherwise malicious users could plan cross-wiki spam to harm any older article in an AfD discussion. --Immanuel Giel (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Not a single newspaper article, interview, or mention can be found that isn't derivative of the many wiki articles recently created. The single not self-published work, a title in the "...for Dummies" series, is neither "well-known" nor "significant". I was going to quote its sales rank on Amazon here. But, as it turns out, Amazon(.de) doesn't even have it in its catalogue, not even used. The spam campaign referenced above also leaves a bad taste. And while a policy of deleting articles for that reason would allow malicious use as mentioned above, there is no reason to believe that to be the case here. K. Oblique 03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Only commenting (because COI, as I’ve learned): No articles? Some of them were mentioned by Immanuel Giel, and these articles are not derivative of the cross-wiki spam (most or all of them were published before the cross-wiki spam); most of them you can google. No sales rank? Of cause not: because of the publishers jubilee a Second edition was already published, for free, in the web, in 2021. You can google it… -- th0815 09:42, 16 January 2022 (CET)
    • Comment no.2 (COI): I forgot: The last copies of the printed first edition (2019) are for free, if one contacts the publisher. Would be stupid to pay for a first edition copy (and stupid to try a sell by the publisher, by amazon or someone else). And the second edition (2021) is published only as a free pdf because of the publishers jubilee, so there can be no amazon data set. -- th0815 11:50, 16 January 2022 (CET)
    • Comment no.3 (COI): By the way: Is "bad taste" an argument? -- th0815 15:03, 16 January 2022 (CET)
  • 'I just now removed he material that belongso nly in a cv, such as a full list of his book reviews and his fiction , which seems to have very little distribution. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete It's noteworthy that the eWPs in which thereare \not an article, are the French, German, and Italian. I think the reason is their selectivity. I don't think we want to show we're worse than they are. . DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment (COI): As far as I know, "notability is not established because another wiki has a page on the subject" (quote from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Notability; maybe one might find something similiar in the English language WP). Th0815 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment no.2 (COI): Found it in en.wikipedia.org!: "On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted." WP:OTHERLANGS Th0815 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If you try to edit AfD discussions, you can read the sentence: "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." And, well, except Immanuel Giel (who in his user talk stoically stated about another delete: "Let it be") until now my person seems to be the only user who tries to do something like citing guidelines/essays (if I find them ;-)... Except one user, who uses Amazon ranking as an argument (smells like "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking)" – WP:INVALIDBIO) to refute a library possessions argument pro keep… I'm curious about the decision. But not curious enough to wait for the decision and therefore go to bed later today. Good night! Th0815 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus proposal: Modify and keep, to shorten the discussion: a new text version (1) based on the changes made by DGG (see above, 19:13, 16 January 2022), --- (2) inserting the text passage concerning reviews (line 20, deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle) as a last paragraph into the section "Carreer as an author" (to address MrsSnoozyTurtles promo concern a little bit and act according above mentioned "the primary subject of […] reviews" (WP:AUTHOR)), --- (3) deleting the non-fictional works in the intro, because they are not mentioned in the DGG-version of the article anymore, --- (4) deleting the infobox made by the COI user th0815, --- (5) deleting the COI tag because of "4", --- (6) deleting the empty "See also" left over by DGG, --- (7) deleting the header "non-fictional works", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (8) changing the header "Works" to "Works (selection)", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (9) finally, in the Edit Summary: referring on the AfD-keep-Consensus found on January Xth; otherwise (1)-(8) have to be listed, in my opinion +++ Alas, I should not do it: In my interpretation, user Deb has warned me not to change anything in this article (Deb: "preclude […] you from editing ", 19:55, 1 December 2021); she/he has warned me not in my user talk, but in the user talk of COI user th0815. Strange… Immanuel Giel (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Gabrielle Geppert

Gabrielle Geppert (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Accepted via AfC back in 2012 (am not sure how its issues didn't get flagged then), would never be accepted nowadays. BLP without any cited references (already an issue in itself). Gabrielle Geppert has a successful vintage shop, but this is not sufficent to confer notability as there seems to be very little readily accessible reliable sources about her, other than advertisements/promo in guidebooks, passing mentions of visits to her shop. (Jennifer Aniston dropped in once.) I couldn't spot any articles specifically talking about the shop that might have shown that the store had published notability in itself, let alone several reliable third party articles that would have collected together to demonstrate notability. The sources listed in the article (but not cited) seem to mainly be promotional, or self-published blogs. It was created by a single-purpose editor who has made no edits outside the article, and again last year by another single-purpose editor whose 5 Gpedia edits were all on this article. Sadly, I don't think there is sufficient notability to be found here per Gpedia's rules. Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Holger Mühlbauer

Holger Mühlbauer (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability. Sources aren't independent (press releases, publisher or employer, ...), and looking for other sources only gives e.g. pieces where he is quoted[23] (a quote taken directly from the press release it seems, compare with this) or mentioned in passing[24]. Some of the sources one can find are for a namesake, a painter and graphic artist. In any case, neither regular Google[25] nor Google News[26] provide any independent sources about the subject, so he fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Misrepresentation of existing sources. ssoar.info is independent. Beuth is independent. Horizont Magazine is a regular magazine. There are also published books. KittenKlub (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Beuth is his publisher; that is not independent info. Ssoar published a text by him, and includes a short biography (as publishers often do). Again, not independent. Publishers giving a biography of someone they published... Horizont is the only decent source (for notability) here. Fram (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keep. Did we do a WP:BEFORE on specific industry journals? I think the article does him some disservice by calling him a technical writer which he might be, but, he seems to be a domain expert as it pertains to technology standards based on the work for International Standards Organisation and also as the managing director of TeleTrusT. Gerda Arendt had earlier shared a few links, some of which do seem relevant. [27] [28] and [29]. Might be worth searching more along these lines. Not a straightforward delete for sure. Might be worth keeping. Ktin (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also, I see some good presence (with decent numbers of cites) on Google Scholar  – Link here Ktin (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link, but I see nothing which comes close to the WP:NPROF criteria. Perhaps I missed some highly cited publication or so? Fram (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm confused. Yesterday, Gerda Arendt came to your user talk page[30] and posted there the links you repeat above, and thanks you for "your help with the ISO person". I can't find where you previously edited the article or the AfD, so I have no idea what "help" that would be? It all looks a lot like Gerda Arendt going around to one of her friends to rally support for this article, which would be canvassing / votestacking, but perhaps there is a better explanation and I missed something here? Fram (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    I went to Ktin for three reasons: thanking me for an edit on my user talk per ping, adding a ref and removing the pro-deletion template. (We also worked on other articles together.) Quite the opposite of what you think, I archived all Mühlbauer-related talk from my well-watched talk. It was your new template, Fram, which brought the topic back to my talk. If people arrive here, they will have seen it on my talk where I didn't comment but left it. I tried to not even take part in this discussion but your comment hurt me enough to break my intention. I know too little about what it takes to be notable for en-WP but can tell you that he is notable for my standards just by the position he holds, and I will write about Helmut Reimer (his predecessor, who was also one of the teachers of Angela Merkel so will have better chances) regardless of how this ends. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Those edits were by Kittenklub, not Ktin[31]. I presume they're not the same person. It was your out-of-the-blue comment at Ktin's user talk page that brought them here. Fram (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry. I notice only now that I confused the two user names, nervous as I was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey folks, I am coming up to speed on this thread. Fram can you please explain the relevance of your question to this AfD other than to potentially side track this conversation?
    Specifically, if you are accusing an editor of WP:CANVAS, look no further than the very first line of the passage In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. So, I do not see any issues with the invoke. It was very much on-platform. Please focus on the discussion. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    People who are canvassed rarely see any issue with them being canvassed. That Gerda Arendt can't even acknowledge the errors in her attempted rebuttal of my statement is clear enough. Fram (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    While I am not interested in your second sentence, your first sentence is an ad-hominem attack on me and my abilities. I would encourage you to refrain from doing so. Ktin (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • keep As said before, I believe this person is notable, perhaps not per WP formality, but by being a voice in international standardization, and asked to comment by papers such as Wirtschaftswoche (article) and Computerwoche, in his national leading function. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear to meet academic notability, and there isn't independent sourcing available. Even the !keep above alludes to the issue of not actually meeting notability, but I'm also unable to identify any other sourcing that would work for GNG. Star Mississippi 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't understand because he is no academic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    he's not well cited enough for that to work, regardless of whether he's an academic. Without his works well cited enough or coverage, I do not see how he is notable per our standards. Star Mississippi 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    His "work" is being head of the German competence centre for IT security, which is in an international network, working internationally, if you ask me, also being instrumental in ISO international standards. What I see is that it's easier for a beauty queen to be acceptable than a person who shapes international standards. Always learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    You're an established editor just as I am, we're both entitled to our opinions on notability and since they're opinions, neither one of us is "right". Agree to disagree, but I'm not sure what beauty queens have to do with this as that's not an area I edit. Star Mississippi 19:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Tim Hendrik Walter

Tim Hendrik Walter (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Non-notable lawyer. References are largely unreliable and social media. No secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Gpedia:ENTERTAINER doesn't apply here. They are decent refs, except apart for Die Ziet, which I think is supposed to be unreliable, which I don't understand. They are reporting on his social media work, which everybody does. It is much of muchness. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - The RS here doesn't seem very convincing in terms of establishing notabliity. Seems to be referencng Tik tok and other social media, with the odd media article. He has one "new face" award. None of this shows that he meets WP:GNG P{ossibly WPtoosoonDeathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gpedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Germany&oldid=1066596230"
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FGermany">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Germany&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>