Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holger Mühlbauer

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 consensus. With the debate open for almost a month, neither side prevails either on numbers or on quality of argument. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holger Mühlbauer

[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 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[1] (a quote taken directly from the press release it seems, compare with this) or mentioned in passing[2]. Some of the sources one can find are for a namesake, a painter and graphic artist. In any case, neither regular Google[3] nor Google News[4] provide any independent sources about the subject, so he fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~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. [5] [6] and [7]. 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)[reply]
Also, I see some good presence (with decent numbers of cites) on Google Scholar – Link here Ktin (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'm confused. Yesterday, Gerda Arendt came to your user talk page[8] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Those edits were by Kittenklub, not Ktin[9]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't understand because he is no academic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG and ANYBIO compliance is demonstrated by references already in the article, including references #4, 5, and 8. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 30 January 2022 (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.