Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Schmelz

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 Delete. An article could arguably be written from the two sources offered (even though "two" is at the very low end of "multiple") but this is not the article. Userfication on request if someone wants to write a sourced article that complies with our policies, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV. ~ trialsanderrors 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthias Schmelz

Matthias Schmelz (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Fails WP:BIO, likely promotional - crz crztalk 12:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. Only found 395 Google hits, but since he is German, there may not be that many German sites in general, since most of the net is in English. The articles I read seem to be teasing him, but whatever. I say err on the side of keeping, since he does seem to have some celebrity.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Found this article about him in English. I don't read German or Portuguese so there may vdery well be similar articles in print in those langauges. -- Whpq 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough English sourcing to meet WP:BIO. There is not [1] and has never been [2] an article on him in the German Wikipedia, so I see no reason to believe the sources exist in other languages before someone actually finds them. GRBerry 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GRBerry, also see how this article started its life. There is nothing to indicate that he is notable or meets WP:BIO. Yanksox 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per guidelines at WP:BIO youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO with current sourcing. The fact that de.wiki does not have an article should be somewhat indicative of his importance. Alphachimp 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It's on the borderline. The The Sunday Times (South Africa) article found by Whpq [3] is a good one, and there is one more that isn't quite as good but does seem to make "multiple independent sources", also from South Africa, strangely enough, apparently a reprint from the Cape Times: [4]. But it's weak, because it's really primarily about his book. I also don't read either German or Portuguese, but the hits returned in those languages seem to be about different people with the same name - students, scientists, sportsmen - and German, while it is not English, is not Swahili either; it is reasonably well represented on the Web, so I would not think there would be a wealth of articles we're missing. The rest is copies of his press release. And it is worrying that the article was written by User:Sandra Pires, since someone of that name shows up on the Web looking for "joint venture partners" to promote Schmelz's book. [5] So while I do think it should be kept, I won't kill myself to fight for this one. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO - clearly does not meet it. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. per AnonEMouse. The article looks promotional, but notoriety seems present nonetheless. --Oakshade 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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.