Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natias Neutert

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. Consensus here is that while the subject appears to be notable, the current article suffers from poor writing and an overly-promotional tone. So, we're going to keep this, but somebody needs to do some major editing (i.e. stubify or WP:TNT). I will leave the implementation of that up to somebody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natias Neutert[edit]

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

The current article "Natias Neutert" does not meet the notability criterias for both authors and actors, or any other circumstance. We shouldn't promote this by having an article in our project: It's an article self-advertising a self-advertiser. Plus, the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia sister project - Neutert is a German citizen - has been deleted twice (just a month ago for the last time) because of his proven encyplopedic irrelevance. I suggest to trust our colleagues and delete the article also here. Richpovertist (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 12:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/14._März_2017#Natias_Neutert_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29, the deleting admin believes the person is notable enough for a short article, but they decided the article was hopeless, so WP:TNT was the only way to be sure. I do also believe Neutert is notable enough, but would recommend stubbing and starting over. —Kusma (t·c) 21:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear admin Kusma, You are a German living here in the UK. That's helpful since you understand both English and German. But the question if Neutert is notable enough to have an article here is not a question of belief but rather of facts, isn't it? He has published only one book and has never had a major role on screen which doesn't make him an author or a film star. At least according to Google, there is no media coverage in this century on Mr Neutert. I just don't see which criteria this person meets according to our regulations which I have linked above for any interested third party. Starting over respectively TNT would end up in getting the same messy current article which is (and will certainly be again) overloaded with pictures that have nothing to do at all with Neutert (like the Karl Marx stamp) and numerous tiny bits of unimportant pieces of information ... From my point of view, this man is just a minor artist who misuses this project for showmanship. This, however, is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm afraid, this leads to the deletion of the article in question. Otherwise, naming the facts that make him notable should be mentioned here. Cheers --Richpovertist (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is an artist/author/activist who was most active in the 1960s to 1980s. According to Google, there are lots of mentions in books in the last century (but he seems less active now). Yes, he is a self promoter, but that is not in itself a reason not to have an article about him. You say we should not have an article about him, but the German Wikipedia discussion ended in the decision to allow an article about him, just not the one they had (which was probably very similar to the one we have at the moment). I am willing to buy the argument that we can find only thousands of minor mentions that do not give us enough to write a properly sourced biography without WP:OR, but I object to characterising this state of affairs as "proven encyplopedic irrelevance". —Kusma (t·c) 05:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read the discussion in our German sister project although my German is a bit rusty (ehem), so I might got things wrong but wasn't one of the major aspects mentioned there that they questioned the sources and pointed out that some assertions like attending Leipzig university in East Germany in the end of the 1960s simply couldn't be true a.k.a. were lies? Talking about the awards, all three were no awards as one of the other users pointed out in their statement. And the "picture issue" (buildings and things that were in the article to make it look more important) was obviously the same in the German article. Once again: If we TNT the current article, someone else will come up with exactly the same using shady sources. And please, don't try to elude. Neutert is a self promoter, and according to your statement this is no objection for having an article. Could you tell me exactly how this goes along with WP:BIO? The section for entertainers reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (no); "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." (no); "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (no). Additionally, the points mentioned for creative professionals do not apply to Neutert either. The statement of the German colleagues can be seen as helpful clues for us but we should also have an independent discussion, following our own rules. I'm very sorry to object you but we usually do not grant self promoters an article here. Why should we do it in Neutert's case? From my point of view, he does not match any of our criterias.—It were a plus though to hear a third and fourth opinion on that. Cheers, --Richpovertist (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it curious that you are so certain what "we usually do" when your account is just a few days old. The problem with Neutert and WP:BIO is that he is a bit of a jack of many trades, and is borderline notable as a journalist, borderline notable as a poet, borderline notable as a performer, while not clearly passing any of the standards of WP:BIO (the most appropriate one is WP:ARTIST's "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"). Your objection against turning this into a decent stub seems to be "people will edit it again" which isn't a problem, as they can be reverted again. The greater problem from my point of view seems to be that it is difficult to write a decent stub, and maybe we shouldn't have an article without better secondary sources (basically, that is how I understand why we have the WP:GNG). I would also welcome a broader discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 21:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I researched Natias Neutert and, based on my findings, he appears notable. He has more than 500 hits on his name through Google Books, and the citations in the article back up this notability. All that said, the article needs to be rewritten b/c the language is very rough and doesn't flow well. But that's not a concern which would cause the article to be deleted.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but turn it into a stub until someone comes along who is willing to rewrite it, to remove all of the blatant promotional nonsense. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2017 (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.