Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Haase

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) czar ⨹ 02:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Haase

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

A notable (?) wikipedian / academician / minor politician biography. It has next to no references, certainly nothing to suggest the subject got any attention from media for any of his roles. Google Scholar profile at [1] does not seem, I believe, to warrant passing Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but there are better experts than me who can comment on this. Being a member of a (minor) party certainly is not enough to make him pass the "elected politicians/officeholders" threshold. Ego Hunter (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — A quick look at the German version of this biography shows many additional sources and seem to clearly indicate notability. I don't speak German but I'm under the impression that Die Zeit, Der Spiegel, and Cicero (magazine) are among the most reliable sources in the German language and are globally recognized. Based on my read of the automatic translations, it sure reads like all three have published profiles and/or interviews with the subject. I've added these references to the article. The English article was in a bad shape, but a simple look at the German version would have shown that it could be improved and kept. Ego Hunter is right that this probably does not meet WP:PROF#1 but clearly does meet the WP:GNG.

This nomination is by an acknowledged WP:SOCK WP:SPA created to nominate biographies of Wikipedians and Wikimedians for deletion. I've detailed some reasons for concern on the nominator's talk page and, after their pattern of editing was recognized, the nominator has admitted and defended their campaign and use of a WP:SOCK on their user page. So far, 5/5 closed AfDs by this nom have been decisions to keep and several have trivially uncovered reliable sources, major awards, etc. Because I've seen no evidence that this nominator is following WP:BEFORE, this smells me to as WP:POINTy behavior and I think this is a borderline speedy keep under WP:SK#2b. —mako ๛ 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have sufficient WP:GNG notability then we don't need WP:PROF. The Zeit story doesn't really have much in-depth coverage of the subject — it is more an interview with him about something else — but the Spiegel profile is convincing. And the Taz and Cicero pieces seem nontrivial enough in their coverage of the subject (and his blog) that I think we have the "multiple sources" part of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2014 (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.