Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Lautenbach

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. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Lautenbach[edit]

Per ANI request. Created by a banned user in violation of CSD criteria G5, and deleted as such in May 2009. However, precedent was set with a similar article created by this same user that such articles can be kept. I remain neutral; I merely believe this should be discussed rather than summarily deleted. Tan | 39 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN guy, reliable secondary sources provided mention him only in passing. I ignored mentions of this person in unreliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just take a look at Google books. I think that's a clear indication of notability; everything I see in the first several pages is relevant, and while some of it is trivial, much of it is not. By all indications, an important German economic figure. One of the books calls him "Germany's leading Keynesian", if that's not notability I don't know what is. Cool3 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. The idea here is to build an encyclopedia.--Leatherstocking (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Menshikov article does nothing to establish the notability of this subject. That's not a legitimate AfD argument. Will Beback talk 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am sure this has been created as another LaRouche coatrack but I cannot see that Lautenbach is anything but notable. Students of interwar European finance will know him and he warrants a full two page discussion in Kindleberger's World in Depression (can be viewed on Google books). Needs sources and better wording though. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors may wish to look at the moderately improved version of the article; I have added some more details and ref. I agree its hard to see his notability based on google as all the weird LaRouche junk comes up first. But to exclude him from an encyclopedia just because he is fetishised by LaRouche is not a valid decision rule (we would also then have to exclude Riemann!!). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books shows plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, and would not have been questioned except for who created it. G5 is only justified to discourage such users, but it doesn't seem to work for the purpose. What I say, is that perhaps we should retire it, and that consensus has now changed to that effect. DGG (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; see relevant conversation on my talk page here. Tan | 39 04:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The policy would do more to discourage banned editors from returning if we don't recreate their articles without going through the normal procedures that were put in place just to handle issues like this. If folks really believe that restoring the banned editor's words without prior discussion will discourage him from making new socks puppets to push his fringe POV then I'd like to hear the reasoning. Dealing with users who have been banned due to their disruption or POV pushing is one of the major problems on Wikipedia and one which takes up the time of many admins, functionaries and regular editors. While it's not necessary for everyone to deal with them, circumventing the community-approved remedies is unhelpful. Will Beback talk 04:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable book sources show notability. Who wrote it originally does not matter as long as the current article is NPOV. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2009 (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.