Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kehlmann

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While there was a strong argument presented by the delete voters, the keeps directly contradicted the claim that notability in Germany does not equal notability in the English world, and was enough to sway consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kehlmann[edit]

Michael Kehlmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I believe this article should be deleted or moved to German Wikipedia because the subject is not notable enough to have an article in English Wikipedia. I can't find any English-language sources to use as references, which makes it impossible to expand the article, and none of his TV movies are notable enough to have articles of their own, so this article links to hardly any others. It appears his only claim to fame that can easily be verified is his parentage of Daniel Kehlmann. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable enough for me. Also, as said there is no ban here on using foreign sources so it is definitely possible to expand this article. Garion96 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Notable enough for me" isn't a valid reason! And the issue has nothing to do with a ban on foreign sources, it's the inability to understand them in order to use them for research so the article can be expanded, because right now it's just a series of lists. There is nothing notable enough about this person to justify an entry in English Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. Garion96 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am not disputing what it says at Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources, I am saying that if you can't understand the sources in the first place then you can't use them to expand the article beyond the stub it is now. Could you please tell me why you think this person is notable? You have yet to explain that important point. 14:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.164 (talk)
        • Well..since you are saying that it is impossible to expand the article because there are only German sources I assumed you meant that non-foreign sources are not allowed. Perhaps you meant that there is no editor on the English Wikipedia who understands German and therefore no one can expand....? And yes, I think this person is notable enough for an article. With a filmography like that, the German wikipedia article since 2005 (German wikipedia notability standards are usually quite high) and the winning of three (minor) medals. Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think a director of German television movies is notable enough to warrant an article in English Wikipedia. He has an article in German Wikipedia [1] and even that one is sketchy. If he had an extensive list of noteworthy theatrical films to his credit he might warrant an article, but I don't think his background in German TV justifies allowing him an entry in English Wikipedia. MovieMadness (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Directing 50+ films indicated notability. Notability is not temporary - IE if he's notable in Germany, he's notable, full stop. This person already has an article on the German wiki and the French one. By your logic, you should be campaigining hard to get the French entry removed too. We have thousands and thousands of bio articles of non-English people that have been created from trans-wiking data from other languages. It's inane to argue that the English langugage WP can only have English language articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid deletion rationale provided. Nominator admits that there are sources, and admits that the subject is notable enough for the German Wikipedia. If he's notable in one language, he's notable in all. As a world wide project, we should be seeking to include all notable topics, not just those that are notable in "english". Resolute 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't agree that if someone is notable in one language, he's notable in all. Do you mean to tell me Mayor Freidrich Klingenschautzen from Blackensteinwallen in Upper Gugenberg would deserve an article in Wikipedia in every language just because he has one in German Wikipedia? That seems ridiculous. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Is anyone who is voting to keep this article willing to do anything to expand it? As it stands now it has no references and is practically orphaned. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A need for cleanup or expansion is no more a valid rationale for deletion than WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it isn't English. Resolute 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; notable and verifiable. - Altenmann >t 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please explain how this is "verifiable" to anyone who doesn't speak German? I can't find any English sources with information about this person. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you be so kind as to point out the policy that says English sources are mandatory? Obviously German sources would be verifiable by a person who speaks and reads German. We do not require that a source be accessible by everyone, only that they be accessible to someone. Once again, you have yet to offer a deletion rationale that has a basis in policy. Resolute 00:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but I don't speak German and I am interrested in all kind of culture. I don't know why you aren't, you should obviously NOT read wikipedia !! Louxema (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts and Resolute. IP, you don't have to repeat your rationale for deletion every time a user !vote to keep. Salih (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all, Salih, nobody has answered any of my questions. Second of all, in order to pad this article a little, the following was added to it: "During 1951-1953, Kehlmann was the drector of the "Kleines Theater im Konzerthaus" ("Small Theatre in a Concert Hall"). He was awarded the J.-Kainz Medal in 1966." Could someone please explain how this proves Kehlmann is notable if there's no indication of what either Kleines Theater im Konzerthaus or the J.-Kainz medal are or why they themselves are notable achievements? Thank you. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while he has directed multiple films, there is no verifiable evidence that those films have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or "won significant critical attention." Apparently per the one source[2] he won some award, but the award doesn't appear to be a large or notable one either. There is no verifiable evidence that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or that he has "originat[ed] a significant new concept, theory or technique." Therefore, he fails WP:CREATIVE. That said, doing a Google News search for "Michael Kehlmann" returns 100 hits (both English and German), however because most appear to be his name being mentioned in stories about Daniel Kehlman, even at NDR's website where he is a director. That is not significant coverage for Michael, only his son, so he doesn't meet WP:N either. While the lack of English sources is not a valid deletion reason, that does address the issue of the lack of verifiable, reliable sources giving him significant coverage. By the same token, his having an article on the German Wikipedia is also completely irrelevant. The different language Wikis have different guidelines, and their decisions/content/etc do not carry over here just because they can. Likewise, many topics on English folks do not carry over to every last language Wiki just because it exists here. We frequently delete articles that have articles in their own language wikis because those other language wikis generally do not have the same notability criteria nor as large a editor base to help clean out inappropriate articles. The German article has never been nominated for deletion, so you can't claim its "notable" enough there either because no one has challenged it.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the reasons cited by Collectonian, whose rationale is far better than any offered by those who voted to keep. The only source cited [3] doesn't convince me there's anything notable about this individual. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Machine translations are good enough for German sources: Austrian Honorary Cross Class I, there are also a couple of reviews of his work behind paywalls at the NYTimes, and a good bit of coverage independent of Daniel Kehlmann in German/Austrian press. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe there are enough websites referencing him.Ricardoread (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a site that might help this article http://www.interspot.at/prodarticle.php?id=60&lang=en Ricardoread (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The different WPs have different standards of article inclusion, but this does not mean that a figure notable in German but not the English-speaking countries, or vice-versa, belongs only in that language's Encyclopedia. notability is world wide, and if =a person has done work in Germany that would qualify him for an article if the work were in an english speaking country, he's just as notable. Sources in any language are of course fine, as long as we can find them. DGG (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as others have pointed out this deletion is not based on policy. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the Google News hits referred to above don't mention his son[4], so they are an indication that his notability is independent. Even more telling are these 500 books, including many in English, such as these two citing the subject as a major figure in post-WWII Viennese theatre, and they're just the ones I could find in a couple of minutes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cause I did it, but also because I also created in french wiki regarding his notability (his son too of course). I dont understand really the probleme here. But I can understand that it was pratically orphan, it's my 1srt creation in english wiki, that's i asked help... anyway thanks to encourage me to contribute here! Louxema (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale upon which this AfD nomination was based on is flawed. The concept of notability is separate from language. decltype (talk) 13:17, 8 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Kehlmann&oldid=1138077058"