Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Feierabend

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. Issues related to the length of time the article has or has not been edited are not an indicator for the purposes of determining notability. The strongest counter argument in terms of sourcing which was not substantially refuted is that the key source to establish notability cannot be considered independent as it was written by his wife. The discussion explicitly touches on the criteria for WP:NARTIST and substantially refuted, and with the main sourcing substantially discounted a GNG/BIO pass is not possible. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Feierabend

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No sources found. Fails WP:GNG and only 20 revisions done since its creation. Gauravs 51 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (changed to Keep, see below): No results in either Swiss newspaper archive. I will search for German sources tomorrow, ~~but if I don't get around to it this should be read as a !vote to delete~~. Toadspike [Talk] 21:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After searching several newspaper archives, I finally found hits in the Schwäbische Zeitung [1]. Most of it is not sigcov, simply covering exhibitions of his work and by his art group Panta Rhei (likely notable) – this has four sentences about his work and his art, this has around a paragraph about his art, this has a sentence or two. I strongly suspect that their archive, which would have covered Feierabend when he was alive, will have more coverage, but it seems like I'd need their app to access it.

The search function of the Deutscher Zeitungsarchiv is very obtuse but it seems like they don't have anything on him – not a surprise, given that their coverage after ~1950 is limited. Toadspike [Talk] 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the German Wikipedia article, there's a biography of him titled "Die Stille ist laut genug: Der Maler Hermann Feierabend und seine Bilder" and have an article about one of his paintings being stolen [2] (paywalled). Searching that newspaper (Südkurier) for his name in quotes, I get over 39 results. At this point, I am certain that enough sourcing exists for an article, even if I cannot access it due to paywalls. We should keep this article. Toadspike [Talk] 18:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has no citations and I am not finding any RS to support the information presented in the article. The German Wikipedia article does not show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read anything I wrote above? Although he isn't world famous, "He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" is demonstrably false [3][4][5][6]and "or won significant critical attention" is also demonstrably false (there is a book written about him). While I admit that the sources I've linked don't cover all the info in the article, there are in fact many reliable sources that cover him. I also strongly disagree with "The German Wikipedia article does not show notability" – it cites a book and a news source, which is a lot by their standards. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read what you wrote and disagree with your assessment. Multiple items in Schwäbische Zeitung does not make an artist notable, just a member of a local group of artists who exhibit in the town hall every year. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my harsh language. I think the paywalled Südkurier articles and potential coverage in the Schwäbische archives, plus the book, are enough. You do not. This is reasonable and we may agree to disagree. Toadspike [Talk] 17:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. That seems like enough coverage to be a notability pass to me, even if it is a bit hard to access at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article still does not have any references, include birth and death dates and places. Hope the closer will consider Wikipedia:BURDEN. There is nothing to create a source assessment table from, which is what I would usually do at this point. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the article's current content is unverifiable and you may remove it; that doesn't impact notability, though. A source assessment table can't be made due to my NEXIST-style argument, but I would love to hear whether you believe the evidence I've found is enough to assume suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world. Toadspike [Talk] 15:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the unverified content in the current article it would have no text at all. Not one word would remain. I do not think the sources you note might show notability or bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. Reading a machine translated version of the (uncited) article on German Wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Feierabend one can see that it is a nice article honoring a local artist who painted as a side gig to his mechanical engineering career. His wife wrote a monograph about him.

For some reason, an editor recently translated the German article and stripped out some the the fluffier fluff and pasted into the existing stub (that they created in 2009), without any attribution.

Hope this makes my opinion clear :) Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I did not notice that the book was written by his wife, which does limit its value for determining notability. The book does retain some value, as it also contains contributions from others, like a foreword covering much of his biography by the mayor of Friedrichshafen, de:Bernd Wiedmann. That foreword can be found in the second image here – based on this image, I have rewritten the article completely to include only what I can verify. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I do have two questions, User:Gauravs 51. why did you remove the AFD tag soon after you tagged the article? Did you change your mind about the nomination? Secondly, would expectations for this article change if it was marked as a stub article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not fulfil WP:ARTIST, as noted above. The third criterion is not fulfilled, as the biography was written by his wife, and the other three do not apply. WP:POLITICIAN appears not to apply either. While there are clearly a few sources available, I would lean towards simply deleting. Best, Cfrhansen (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been here since 2009. Should not be wihtout references after this long. Lack of editorial edits by wikipedians after so long means it is likely not notable to ediotrs either. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2025 (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.