Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

WP:DSDE

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Germany related AfDs

Scan for Germany related Prods
Scan for Germany related TfDs

Germany

Franz Abbé

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only sourcing is Olympedia and SR (which is to say, the same source) both of which do not satisfy WP:NSPORTS.

WP:BEFORE is rendered difficult by the existence of the composer Franz Liszt (known as "Abbé Liszt" due to his monk-like haircut), but nothing found on Google or Internet Archive other than passing mentions.

The DE Wiki article is an object-lesson in why editors should not engage in original research in primary sources: no we are not in the business of piecing together someone's life story based on marriage/death certificates and entries in the address book that could easily be about someone with the same name! The only not-primary sourcing in the DE Wiki article is this passing mention and this passing mention. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olympedia gives a decent paragraph, noting among other things that he designed a house that was temporarily the residence of Albert Einstein(!). It seems highly likely there's more to find here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"he designed a house that was temporarily the residence of Albert Einstein(!)" - Beannie, Einstein was a totally unknown student when he lived in a small room in that apartment block. Being the architect of a building that someone who decades later became famous temporarily lived in is not even slightly a plausible claim to notability. FOARP (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't looked extensively for sources and am currently neutral in this discussion, it should be noted that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he "inherits" notability from building a house for Einstein, I only said it strongly indicates there's more to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura's Star and the Dream Monsters

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

Fails WP:NFILM. All I could find is one short review by KinderFilmWelt (Children's Film World?) to go with the one already sourced in the article, not AFAIK "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - There's a review by Eltern magazine: [1]. --Mika1h (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Kino-Zeit: [2]. About page is fairly impressive, editor in chief is also a jury member at IFFMH festival. The site had a panel at Filmfest München. The reviewer has also written for Rotten Tomatoes approved publication That Shelf. --Mika1h (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review by de:Vision Kino: [3]

I think that's enough for notability. Even if one were to discount Kino-Zeit (I don't), I think reviews by KinderFilmWelt, Eltern, and Vision Kino are enough for a keep. --Mika1h (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Film is part of a film series with 2 other films and a tv special released by a well-known distributor. the first film doesn't have that many sources either. I also found another review by Kino.de here: http://www.kino.de/kinofilm/lauras-stern-und-die-traummonster/123654, I'll add it to the article later. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani Seppovaara

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

Non-notable Finnish photographer. No indication subject meets WP:NCREATIVE. Cabrils (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Photography, Finland, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly notable as a book author. I would suggest searching German and Finnish media for articles. Especially Unter dem Himmel Ostberlins seems to have received some awards and attentiom: [4][5]. His 70th birthday was noted in Helsingin Sanomat: [6] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - His books have received enough reviews to meet the criteria at WP:NCREATIVE. Plus the coverage by Deutsche Welle contributes towards notability.
- Book reviews: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
- Video report by Deutsche Welle: [14]
- Article by ET-lehti: [15]
- Article by Yle: [16]
- Interview by Iltalehti: [17] (requires registering)
- Lots of hits on Google Books, nothing fully readable, hard to assess if there is any significant coverage --Mika1h (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, convinced by the links to nation-wide Finnish and German media above. /Julle (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

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

We already have List of prison escapes, List of prisoner-of-war escapes, and German POW camps in WWII, so possibly merge? But no sources, making things confusing and hard to verify (home run?) and has been edited maybe ~50 times in the 15 years since its creation. GoldRomean (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15×96mm

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

Lack of notability. I changed this to a redirect to 20×82mm#Usage but was reverted. Seeking consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the redirect is incorrect as it doesnt cover this cartridge. This cartridge was in use throughout WW2 but has too much data to be squeezed into the article MG 151 cannon. There is stuff to write about its history given enough time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs)

What time? What is enough time according to you? Geschichte (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? The article is not hurting Wikipedia in its current state, it is just a list of cartridges and their data. This is a matter of deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Blockhaj (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARMLESS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to understand what you meant, Blockhaj. For instance regarding time, we never write about stuff that we think might catch on in the future (WP:CRYSTALBALL), but in this case, enough time has passed that sources would have been written by this point. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The whole article seems to be copied and pasted from the 316 page manual and there is no secondary sources to prove its actually notable. Its seems to be a development prototype, so wasn't even in anger. So why is on here in the direct. Redirecting with a small para of 2 lines in the destination article would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: Note that it wasn't just a development prototype - it did see service, in the MG-151/15 (which was mainly used in early Bf-109Fs- Williams and Gustin's Flying Guns: World War II notes that the 15 mm gun "may have been more widely used than is generally though".Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 15 mm variant was also more common in the anti air role due to the higher velocity. The "SdKfz 251/21 Drilling" SPAA and its mount in fixed use featured 15 mm MG 151 guns, and it appeared late in the war. Blockhaj (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard about the use in some anti tank rifle but i cannot find anything on it atm so that is a future research project. Blockhaj (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Firearms, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per scope-creep; insifficient WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A large amount of sourced material was deleted from the article......here's the version with it in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15%C3%9796mm&oldid=1291517701. Suggest adding footnotes instead of just saying in talk and edit summaries that it's from the noted source. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see material was removed, but I don't see any citations (at all)... I guess that warranted its removal. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Fire has projectile weight, muzzle velocity and muzzle energy for HE, AP and APCR ammunition.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It does appear the MG 151/15 was used as an antiaircraft weapon (according to the Handbook of German Military Forces) as well as some aircraft. Maybe redirect to MG 151/15? Intothat darkness 19:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourcable content and Redirect to 20×82mm, the cartidge that was developed from this one. Directly related, both cartidges can be covered there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While i prefer this compromize over complete deletion and bloating the MG 151 article, they are completely different cartridges. Sure, the base of the casing is the same, but thats about it. The 20 mm projectiles were taken from the 20x80 Oerlikon cartridge used in the MG FF. Blockhaj (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From 20x82mm - a necked-up 20 mm variant of the 15×96mm cartridge. Projectiles were different, yes. That's...kind of understood as its 20mm instead of 15mm. But the cartridge was a direct development. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but it is shortened as well. We have separate articles for 7.62×51mm NATO and .308 Winchester, and those can essentially not be told apart by eye. Blockhaj (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a good comparison. Both those rounds are in much wider (and contemporary) use, and the differences between them are much less significant than those between the 15x96 and 20x82. Intothat darkness 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per those above, to provide the context of how this relates to the broader concept of the redirect target. BD2412 T 19:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - little more than a dicdef.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, let's say that the deleted material was restored and footnotes added (which is what I recommend for clarity here) to reinforce that the material is wp:ver compliant. And let's say that for an article like this the norm is a slightly lenient / not unusually rigorous interpretation of GNG. We still have a "stats-only" article with just "it existed" type scope, and we are not able to readily evaluate whether the source is even somewhat GNG, and the material being limited to "stats-only" also doesn't indicate broader GNG type coverage in the source. And so far Blockhaj has been more focused on the dispute over the deleted material rather than addressing or arguing the GNG question, which is THE question. Both folks involved in the dispute are blocked from article space for 24 hours, so I don't know if @Blockhaj: can respond here. If sources are available and more content could be developed I think it would be preferable to cover it in an article named for it rather than put inside an article with a different name. Short term (like some progress within 2 days) this would need Blockhaj or any advocate for keeping to convince us that sourcing for such is available, probably by describing or deriving more GNG type content from the current source and/or finding more sources. If that is not done, even under a lenient GNG standard (which I recommend) I see no wiki-valid reason (regarding wp:notability) for keeping this as a separate article and IMO the merge to the article on the successor round would be the best move. If that happens, and then more sources are identified in the future, it could be recreated at that time. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to add with time, if given, such as its service in the air and why it was eventually superseeded by the 20x82, and also its continued use on the ground (we are mainly talking the addition of projectile damage against different targets here). Development history is also in the pipeline, such as why Mauser went with a 15 mm projectile instead of a 20 mm or 13 mm projectile, etc. Blockhaj (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the minimum for article space for this is to include some sources that have such coverage. Until then draft space is a good place to develop it to that point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will never understand deletionism but then il get a draft going when i have time. Blockhaj (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Scope creep. Miniapolis 22:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but... feels like the proper redirect target is 15 mm caliber not the cartridge it eventually got revised into, to reflect that it did still exist for a time in those dimensions.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background info: For those uninvolved, this article was created as a stub for further improvement in the future. The entire table was ported from the MG 151 article, as it and its brother (20×82mm) bloated that article. When there was a suggestion to give 20x82 its own article and port that table there, it was obvious and essentially required to do the same for the 15 mm cartridge, however, due to limited time, it had to be a stub.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 German public transport strike

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

A one-day event without much lasting effect, probably fails WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a strike involving 400,000 workers which was described as "‘paralyzing’ Europe’s biggest economy" is unquestionably notable.--User:Namiba 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Firstly, I don't see what WP:GNG has to do with it. The sources cited clearly demonstrate sufficient coverage. All three are on the WP:RSPLIST, and by searching online I can see that more sources have covered it as well. Secondly, this was seemingly a huge strike ("the largest transport workers' action since a series of strikes in the 1990s") that did "paralyz[e] Europe's biggest economy", as Namiba points out. Spookyaki (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NEVENT says that lasting effect is a strong indicator of notability, but not having lasting effect isn't disqualifying. There's lots of good articles on Wikipedia covering events that haven't had lasting, transformative impacts on the broader world. "Lasting impacts" can be a bit relative in the context of strikes too, because they typically do have lasting impacts; it's just that they're confined to a certain part of the workforce. Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But also it seems that RS from 2024 also describes lasting impact in the overall affiliation to the organizing unions: [18]. MarioGom (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough reliable sources have significantly covered it to meet GNG, and a strike composed of hundreds of thousands of people, even for a single day, very likely meets the "lasting effect" criteria. Even if the effect is only in that part of the workforce, that is still an impactful event.

(more citations should be added to the article, though. I'll put a cleanup template) ApexParagon (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve added BBC and Reuters content to an already well-sourced article that also includes The New York Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera. We’re spoilt for choice on WP:THREE, and the event clearly meets WP:GNG. While it lasted just one day, its scale and widespread disruption received significant international coverage, meeting WP:NEVENT. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a significant event. The article is well-sourced. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough SIGCOV in RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Independent Film Festival

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per WP:COVERAGE section at WP:EVENTS, there is enough sources to satisfy the criteria "diversity of sources" but the "depth of coverage" is lacking. The best articles I found are by Exberliner: [19], Hero (British magazine): [20], and Screen Daily: [21]. The "duration of coverage" is also lacking, very difficult to find coverage of the festival in some years. You would think that winners and film line-ups would be regularly reported but seems to be not the case. --Mika1h (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

Article has been orphaned for more than a year; the main subject is of the memorial that never happened, not the person himself. Does not meet WP:BIO LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Wisconsin. LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAVDACH

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

A highly promotional article about a pressure group that seems to fail WP:NORG. Having nuked some of the spam in the article, I tried to look for sources, and found none (the group seems to be known as "UAV DACH", and even searching for that got me nothing usable as a source, let alone something that would contribute towards NORG). That said, it is possible that I may be unable to access or find local sources in a search because of my location, and I think bringing it to AfD would also bring this article to the wider community's attention and increase the possibility of sources being found, if they exist. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Aviation, and Germany. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an EN Version of the German Wiki post that provides all sources. Boatschafter (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that, and most of the references cited there are either to UAV DACH's own website (i.e. not WP:INDEPENDENT of the source), or to registries or other places mentioning the group without providing in-depth significant coverage of the company, or at best some run-of-the-mill routine coverage about the group's elections. Java Hurricane 08:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher)

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

Notability assessment Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Germany. Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Xpander1, you have created this article as a translation of the de.wiki article and then you yourself have nominated it for deletion 3 minutes later, with this "Notability assessment" rationale. I am not understanding what you are seeking to accomplish by these steps and such a non-specific rationale? AllyD (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~until rationale for deletion is advanced.~~ Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I just had translated the page, that it got blanked here by User:Onel5969 (on notability and verifiability grounds), therefore I thought I'd bring the page here so that it's better assessed by reliable consensus. If this rationale is not sufficient, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Xpander (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So based on this, we have two articles, the original Johannes Hoffmeister on which the article text was reverted, and this new Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher) which was created to open this discussion. A bit messy, but the AFD rationale is effectively then Onel5969's comment on the other article "Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Also, zero sources to satisfy WP:VERIFY". AllyD (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ACADEMIC 1.c. as per the festschrift Johannes Hoffmeister zum Gedächtnis (1956). Jahaza (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made Johannes Hoffmeister a disambig, but the philosopher is probably the primary topic, at least for now. Jahaza (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a significant figure in Hegel scholarship, overseeing some enormous works (his work was apparently also important for non-German-reading Hegel scholars). There's biographical discussion (in German) in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A history merge is surely appropriate here... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn, thanks for providing the new sources. I've added those to the article. By WP:HISTMERGE do you suggest that the page-history would be merged with Johannes Hoffmeister (currently a disambiguation page)? If so histmerge suggests that in case that "only one editor has written all of the content" a histmerge is not necessary. What's more is that the aforementioned page was originally created as a redirect to Hans Hoffmeister (water polo) which is a totally different topic, that content-wise is also not relevant. Best. Xpander (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough -- I'd misunderstood the situation! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deaftify. Independent of an notability this is far short of the requirements for sourcing. Currently it reads like an essay as well. It needs a complete rewtite. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hoffmeister’s critical Hegel editions remain standard scholarly references and he is the subject of a dedicated memorial volume (Johannes Hoffmeister zum Gedächtnis, Meiner 1956) as well as peer-reviewed analysis (e.g. Regnier, Archives de philosophie 33 [1970]), easily satisfying WP:GNG and WP:PROF; the entry needs cleanup, not deletion. Pollia (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ouaissa

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

I don’t believe this subject passes any of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Algeria, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that I can't see a pass of any of the NPROF criteria. A pass of WP:NAUTHOR would be more likely, but I was only able to find the one review already cited in the article, plus this review of one of their edited volumes. A German speaker might have better luck, but I couldn't find nearly enough for notability. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I somehow feel that someone at his rank should have more visible, and maybe the language barrier is preventing us from finding it, but one review of a monograph and one review of an edited volume isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I also don't see enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the necessary sources to demonstrate notability. Lacks WP:GNG, if more sources can be found to bolster notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I estimate his GS h-factor to be 8-10, which is low. However, when I look at those of his co-authors who have profiles, their h-factors are in the range 10-20. Hence I have to conclude that this is a very low citation field, so not as low as the raw numbers suggest. I have not checked if his books have had favorable reviews; I cannot find any awards to boost the case. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some comparative GS profiles are [22], [23], [24], [25], with a couple being in the mid-twenties. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merian Centre for Advanced Studies in the Maghreb

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

Bilateral research centre sourced to the websites of related organisations, lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Tunisia, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did this come from draft space? If so, send it back for more work. If not, send it there for more work. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s past the 90 day deadline for sending to draft without coming to AfD first.Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But can be sent back to draft by consensus here. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though if nobody can find decent third party sourcing there’s no point in draftifying it. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tunis University#Organisation. I just added it there. No independent reliable sources can be found, but none of the other organizations at Tunis University are well sourced either. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support a redirect there thanks. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Amberg

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. City Clerk of Chicago is not an office which confers inherent notability (nor is penitentiary commissioner, another office he appears to have held). Search turns up some mentions of his name but no significant coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place: Amberg was an elected official whose office (City Clerk of Chicago) has a Wikipedia page with numerous officeholders' biographies included on Wikipedia. City Clerk of Chicago was and remains notable, hence many holders of this office have Wikipedia biographies and the office has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyVoice (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that major local can often meet GNG, the sourcing on this and his tenure do not lead me to believe that such content exists.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleuger

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

Non-notable company. Covered mostly by WP:TRADES. The best article about the company is this but it is more about Alster fountain than the company. WP:SPAs editing history is also problematic. Overall, clearly fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references. --Trimax503 (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ATA. It would be better if you point out the references (that meet WP:CORPDEPTH standard) and why you are just interested in AfDs as a newbie? Gheus (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost 100 years old and still operating. Been through a world war. Involved in the Kriesmarine. There is probably more sources than you shake a stick at. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German and French available articles as well. Far more than borderline. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German and French Wikipedia articles are translations of this article, so they don’t contribute to the company’s notability in any way. Gheus (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can say this for almost every company that is "almost 100 years old" - I'm not convinced. If you have seen significant coverage, then just mention it here. Gheus (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. A Google Books search turns up tons of sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 10:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A Google Books search turns up tons of sigcov" - you can just name two books (with pp.) that cover this company in depth, and I'll withdraw the nomination if confirmed - it's that simple. Gheus (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gheus I apologize for my lazy !vote, it seems really out of character for me and I can't recall why I didn't properly cite my sources. My Google Books preview access is fairly limited but these [26][27] might be independent sigcov. They might also not be – if you can see more of them than I can and they are not, I will strike my !vote. Toadspike [Talk] 08:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet Archive has some results too, under the name "Pleuger Unterwasserpumpen". Here is an example of what I see as independent sigcov: [28]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've spent way too long searching (currently trying the German newspaper archive [29]) and I'm still not having much luck. The difficulty I'm having finding sources with sigcov is alarming. Since Friedrich Wilhelm Pleuger is undoubtedly notable, I am striking my !vote and suggest a merge to that article instead. @Eluchil404, is this alternative to deletion acceptable to you? Toadspike [Talk] 08:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for replying again) [30] is independent sigcov of one specific Pleuger product. Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, there's more. This one [31] is really solid, while these [32][33] might also be okay. I am leaning towards a keep again but I'll have to think about this before unstriking. Toadspike [Talk] 09:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. All I see in google searches is reprinted press releases and routine coverage of business transactions. I found one by-lined article. The top Google books hits look to be false positives or advertisements in trade-publications; I saw no obvious significant coverage. Maybe offline or German language sources exist that I missed, but at least a couple need to be found before an article is created. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per google books search mentioned by Toadspike. I see some coverage of the equipment, but not the company itself. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus at present, further source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks to Toadspike for continuing to research and find better sources. I have no objections to a redirect as an ATD, though I think the sources remain marginal at best for a stand-alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok if we want to redirect it to Friedrich Wilhelm Pleuger. Gheus (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

Germany

Franz Abbé

Laura's Star and the Dream Monsters

Juhani Seppovaara

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

15×96mm

2023 German public transport strike

Berlin Independent Film Festival

Ted Junker

UAVDACH

Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher)

Rachid Ouaissa

Merian Centre for Advanced Studies in the Maghreb

Franz Amberg

Pleuger

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also