- Hans Riemer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
First, as an FYI, the closing editor, Crisco 1492 has retired. I never saw the article that was originally deleted, but I have created a draft of the new Hans Riemer article. I think the new content is well written, well sourced and shows the notability of the subject. Mr. Riemer is currently a county councilman, but has done national level work on the issue of social security and political campaigns.
I would like the current redirect, Hans Riemer deleted, the old content restored, and the new content added "on top." Thank you. --evrik (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the deletion discussion was several years ago and this doesn't appear to be a WP:G4 - has the redirect been salted at all? I would note - not to turn this into an AfD but as a note for the author of the article - that if this gets restored, I would be a firm delete vote at AfD, since local council members do not receive automatic notability, it's written promotionally, and I don't think any of the sources get him to WP:GNG. (If anyone has any questions on why, please find me on my talk page as to not dilute this discussion.) SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the redirect has not been salted. I came here first because I want to avoid this going right to an AfD. While Riemer’s current position does not confer notability, his previous work does. Also, the sources include the Washington Post and congressional testimony. --evrik (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with you recreating the article in mainspace since it's not a WP:G4 though based on the sourcing that's currently available, I would take it to AfD to see if community consensus would be to delete the article. The Washington Post (since it's covering local politics and only sort of mentions him) and congressional testimony (primary) isn't enough for me to support unequivocal recreation. I don't think we need to formally endorse the deletion. We'll see what others have to say here though, we have a full week! SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If I have to take it to AfD, I will, but before I do, I wanted to run it by here. Also, I'd like to get the history restored and merged so it is all in one place. FWIW, he has also been covered by the Oakland Tribune, Inside Politics (CNN), The American Prospect, MSNBC. --evrik (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not 100% sold this doesn't fall under G4 - nominally, any new significant source would make me decline a G4, but I'm not seeing any sources here that don't make me think "local politician covered in local paper", the reasoning behind the previous AfD. WilyD 13:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Twenty years ago, he was the head of a national advocacy group ("2030 Center". C-Span.), he had high level positions with both Rock the Vote and the Obama Campaign. One of the people he worked with twenty years ago, Maya MacGuineas, is notable enough to justify her own page. He works on a national commission for the FCC, and several regional commissions. All this without mentioning his current elected position. --evrik (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- evrik, while I understand you're trying to demonstrate new information, given the length of time since the deletion discussion and the newly created article, these are all arguments for an AfD, not DRV. WilyD, since evrik claims they never saw the deleted version, WP:G4 cannot apply. This is best restored to mainspace and sent to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In practice, what "substantially identical" means for G4 often gets interpreted as "substantially identical with respect to whatever issue caused deletion at XFD" - if an article is deleted on notability grounds, any new article using just the same sources is going to get deleted, no matter how you re-write the ext. It's true it's not clearly specified, and my instinct is always to require a new AfD if there's any serious change, and here it's a bit nuanced. But if G4 is "Are you 100% confident a new AfD would be identical to the one that got it deleted?" I'm at 98%-99% here. Which isn't me arguing in favour of a specific position - I ain't doing that, but a suggestion that restoring as is is probably not the best path. WilyD 08:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this page is undeleted, there is no indication that this person is the Primary Topic for the name, so the article will need a bracketed disambiguator. After it is in mainspace at that title it would be possible for someone to propose a move to establish him as the Primary Topic, but this would need discussion. PamD 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not relevant to this discussion, nor your on-going edit war. --evrik (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hans Riemer should point to the most notable person with that name -- which, with all due respect to the living Mr Riemer, is clearly the federal-level Austrian, not the US county councillor. The outcome I would prefer is to move Hans Riemer (Austrian politician) to Hans Riemer, move the draft to something like Hans Riemer (Californian politician), and then add hatnotes to each article.—S Marshall T/C 13:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:S Marshall - I didn't know that Riemer had moved across North America. Do you mean Hans Riemer (Maryland politician)? (We could make things really confusing by saying Hans Riemer (Montgomery County politician). The confusion is probably due to Montgomery County needing disambiguation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are, of course, quite right. My sincere apologies.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:S Marshall No apology required. I haven't lived in Montgomery County, Maryland for decades. By the way, there are 20 places called Montgomery County, of which 18 are in the United States, one in Australia, and one in Wales. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If I enter Washington County or Orange County or Franklin County, et cetera, I am predicting that a bot will tell me that I probably didn't mean to be making an entry of a disambiguation list. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Evrik - I would absolutely support creation of the Hans Riemer article due to the positions he has held and prominent media coverage, but I think that the disambiguation page should still remain as it is, so I don't agree with you changing it. It might be hard to get enough consensus here to completely avoid the possibility of a deletion nomination, but I don't think that should stop you from going ahead. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
