Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter van Laack

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. Nakon 19:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter van Laack

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

It is very rare that I challenge an article about a German subject who has a corresponding article in the deWP; their standards are usually higher than ours. This, however, is a just-written new article there, and I doubt it will meet either their standards or ours. There are no 3rd party references of substance-- the paragraph in the German Huffington Post, is just their own bio sketch of their own contributor. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter van Laack is a teacher at university of Aachen, also he has written many books, also he was very often in TV, interviews, shows and so on. There are included videos for example of ZDF, one of the most important TV-chanels in Germany. There are much more TV-videos. So for German Wikipedia it is more than enough, to get an own article. He met multiple criteria in German Wikipedia. If not so, you can believe me, the article would be deleted during first 24 hours in Germany. Wega14 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check this: [1] . This is in the weblinks and is the website of university of Aachen. There you can see a list of science papers he made, books he wrote, books he were co-worker, TV- interviews and so on and so on. It is all German, but with google, it should be possible to translate. Wega14 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By our standards, 1/the book chapters do not count towards notability ; 2/ His papers are in German. Google Scholar shows none of them are significantly cited -- which is not a measure of lack of quality but rather the intrinsic English language bias of the biomedical literature towards papers published in other languages. This does not show they are unimportant in Germany,-- they are mostly published in what I recognize as a biomedical librarian to be major German journals--but it does show they have not had any world-wide influence. In judging by WP:PROF, we normally consider importance to be judged on an international basis (as distinct from things like politics or literature, where national importance is sufficient) 3/ As for books are a bit of a problem: I see in WorldCat his novel Our Key to Eternity, an English translation of his Unser Schlüssel zur Ewigkeit, ; I also see several other German language books, and a few in English, all devoted to the possibility of life after death. Unfortunately, it seems that the novel and apparently most or all of his other books are self-published, and we very rarely count these towards notability. What you need to do is find references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, that show his importance, as wecannot in this case directly infer it from the publications. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still am not seeing anything at all convincing for the applicable notability and I concur with DGG, these articles are often acceptable if improved at their native Wiki, but there's nothing particularly better here. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so I posted it already, but may be, because it is German: [2] . This is in the weblinks and is the website of university of Aachen. So I post here now some examples of that website of university of Aachen for better understanding. And please notice: in Germany he became more or less famous, because he is often in TV, newspapers or other medias:

Walter van Laack is professor at university of Aachen, Germany.

Here few links to TV-Shows, -interviews and so on:

ZDF-Mittagsmagazin mit Susanne Conrad, 04.11.2009, Talk zum Thema "Nahtoderfahrungen": [3]

Meike Pommer für Spiegel-TV: "Einblicke ins Jenseits - Gibt es ein Leben nach dem Tod?" Erstaustrahlung auf VOX am 11.02.2012: [4]

WDR TV, "Lokalzeit Aachen" vom 02.12.2013 mit Sonja Fuhrmann: (Das Interview zu NTE mit Prof. Dr. W. van Laack finden Sie als Ausschnitt der Sendung unter dem Menüpunkt "Videos") : [5]

Interview zu NTE, Deutschlandfunk, Karfreitag 2013, Dr. Michael Köhler, Deutschlandfunk, interview Prof. Dr. Walter van Laack zu NTE, Karfreitag, 29.03.2013, 10,40 min. 2013-03-29, Deutschlandfunk, NTE, MP3 Audio Datei 9.8 MB [6]

and so on, there are lot of them, and radio, newspapers ... . I could continue, but hope it is enough so far.

So here some science papers he wrote:

Click here for extensive list

(NOTE: Now moved to subpage as it was slowing down loading and editing of this AfD) Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could continue, but I hope, that is enough so far.

Wega14 (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list of publications added above shows a misconception by the adder about notability. What counts is how many others have referred to them, and the GS link shows that very few have. No pass of WP:Prof and WP:Fringe sources not yet adequate.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Subject has authored several books. The article is certainly poorly written and sourced. I have added seven books authored by subject which certainly increases claim of his notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete despite the wall of text above. Publishing a book, in and of itself, does not establish notability. The books do not seem to have received any attention, from scholars or from reviewers. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, nor does he meet WP:PROF. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a very good article, and doesn't present notability very well. The German-wiki article was recently created, by the same user. The user needs to understand that notability on English Wikipedia requires substantial significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, I think with the award received, and the interviews now presented, it scrapes by. I think additional significant independent coverage probably also exists that has not yet been included in the article. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but weak at this time. Article needs more work to properly demonstrate N. Text in article is a direct translation of german article. WP:EVENTUAL if it gets the alleged attention will fix it ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be very tough to currently delete based on the balance (split down the middle by contributors), but the weak keeps incline me to believe a relisting may strengthen the consensus. KaisaL (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2016 (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.