Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klaus Huhn

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) Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Huhn[edit]

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

very weak notability, limited internet links presented are over 15 years old - WP:BLP concerns - there are controversial details being inserted, a stassi informer, and elements of an attack page for a low notable person, Currently there are three supporting externals - http://www.focus.de/magazin/archiv/ddr-journalist-klaus-huhn-war-stasi-spitzel_aid_154495.html, this one from 20 years ago - this one from 14 years ago http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/buecher/rezension-sachbuch-held-der-beinarbeit-11269834.html - the third one is this http://www.bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/wer-war-wer-in-der-ddr-%2363%3B-1424.html?ID=3603 - and is also not good independent reliable source Govindaharihari (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding ge.wiki article: [1] seems quite extensive and is supported by no less than 17 sources, all of which seem to be WP:RS. There is no reason why they can't be used to expand this article. The fact that they are in German is irrelevant. Kuhn seems to be sufficiently notable in his field. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons stated .above by Martinevans123. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article is carefully presented and has nothing of an attack about it. Four sources for someone of minor notability should be fine, plus the three listed books. I see no reason to delete this. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One cannot write a biography on a controversial subject without mentioning the controversy. Our article maintains NPOV, simply mentions it, as it should be. The Focus piece, which is cited states he was "one of the most influential journalists in the GDR", other sources on this page and the German page indicate the same, that he was widely influential. Circumstances have changed, but that does not diminish his one time significant importance. The argument that the sources are dated has no merit. Sources on all historical figures are dated. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absurd nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rebuke User:Govindaharihari for spurious nomination and for aggression, incivility on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2015 (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.