Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guntmar Wolff

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guntmar Wolff[edit]

Speedy Delete I am the author of this article and after reviewing it and the given references when I first wrote it, it seems that the references do not exist anymore, so there is no validation for any of the statements written in this article. Please speedy deletion. Thank you.

Image cultivation for Guntmar Wolff. Topic not relevant for wikipedia High Contrast (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have this page removed. I was looking for information on him and it is great that it is on Wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.231.58 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.231.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, sufficient. His achievements are exceptional and he seems to be a particularly notable professional speaker and a successful author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.94.30 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.231.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, most of the article is more an advertisement for him, mainly the sections "Career and ideas" and "Seminars". The fact that he has written two books, which none of them did appear on the english market, makes him not relevant to wikipedia. Note that the article about him has been deleted on the german wikipedia because of lack of relevance. The User:Motivationweb (whoever he or she is) tries to push Guntmar Wolff in the english and german wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote. This fact confirms the suspicion of promoting the entrepreneur Guntmar Wolff in Wikimedia projects. --132.199.211.24 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient. I am the author of the article. I am chief editor of a major financial magazine. This discussion is completely obsolete. Guntmar Wolff is a well known author, trainer and an expert with a high reputation in his field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motivationweb (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC) — Motivationweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The motivations of the article creator, and whether the subject has been published in English, are irrelevant to the issue of deletion, as is my strong personal dislike of the whole field in which this subject works. The cited sources in Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung have significant enough coverage of the subject to pass English Wikipedia's notability criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conducting seminars is not intrinsically notable, and that he somehow managed to get an otherwise reputable magazine to do his advertising for him doesn't make it any the more notable. DGG (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seminars are perhaps not inherently notable, but he also published at least one book with a notable publisher. You didn't comment on that. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And neither is conducting seminars intrinsically unnotable. Notability has to be decided for each individual case. Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung are two serious newspapers, not "an otherwise reputable magazine", and are the German equivalent of, say, The Washington Post and The New York Times, so I don't think that they can be discounted as reliable sources sufficient for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets the general notability guideline. If we're going to assume those are advertising, we can't rely on any publication anymore, because even though most newspaper articles aren't written with that aim in mind, bringing a person in the public eye will have an advertorial effect. That's not a valid reason to throw out references from highly reputable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sources establishing notability meets WP:Reliable.--J.Mundo (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient general information is provided here without an advertising focus. This article offers a basic biography of the author and informs the reader of his methodology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.82.148 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — 98.27.82.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and cleanup the tone. The tone is slightly like an advertisement, but not enough to warrant deletion per policy. Otherwise, most of the sources seem to be reliable enough to establish notability of the person. MuZemike 17:52, 13 January 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.