Talk:Michael Mronz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From VfD:
Doesn't seem notable to me. Darksun 11:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe you are right, but are you sure you aren't driven by some kind of anti-gay or anti-capitalist bias?
--Ruhrjung 11:32, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)- Yes, I'm sure. If it is notable, fine, but I didn't think it was. Darksun
- Maybe CHIO Aachen isn't notable either. In any case, no-one has bothered to write about it. So of course: If dressage per definition is considered un-notable, then the leader for (one of) the major evenements in Europe is even less notable.
--Ruhrjung 11:45, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)- Your accusations are offensive. It's not anti-gay to suggest deletion of an article about someone who's gay for other reasons, but it is offensive to try to throw the genderist card when it's entirely inappropriate. And nobody said dressage per definition is un-notable, you're throwing up straw men. Delete. RickK 19:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Your tone is offensive. Obviously you are offended. Sorry for that. But on the main issue, I don't see any accusations made by me, only a slightly ironical question. As I wrote initially: Maybe Darksun is right. It's no big deal. You oughtn't make a hen out of a feather. --Ruhrjung 20:20, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
- Your accusations are offensive. It's not anti-gay to suggest deletion of an article about someone who's gay for other reasons, but it is offensive to try to throw the genderist card when it's entirely inappropriate. And nobody said dressage per definition is un-notable, you're throwing up straw men. Delete. RickK 19:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe CHIO Aachen isn't notable either. In any case, no-one has bothered to write about it. So of course: If dressage per definition is considered un-notable, then the leader for (one of) the major evenements in Europe is even less notable.
- Yes, I'm sure. If it is notable, fine, but I didn't think it was. Darksun
- A manager/promoter is usually not very notable. There are a few exceptions, like Phil Gramm, perhaps, but it takes a monumental stature for promoting events to make it. The in-the-news quality of his outing is, as stated, also not so notable. Was there some consequence of the outing? Delete. Geogre 12:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This person is very notable. anthony (see warning) 12:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think this case is quite notable in Germany, where being gay is tolerated, but not really out in the open yet, especially for public figures. Neutral for now. --Elf-friend 12:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Now redirected to the German politician Guido Westerwelle where he is already mentioned. His relationship with Westerwelle forms, as best as I can tell, the sole basis of his notability. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami 22:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Good decision. Geogre 02:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- A redirect from one person to another isn't harmless, it's confusing. anthony (see warning) 14:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- For people who can't read, I'm sure you're right. We redirect people famous as girlfriends to their partners, too. The people likely to be confused have long ago left. Geogre 13:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Redirecting girlfriends to partners is slightly less confusing, since AKA names generally aren't cross-gender (they still are confusing, and even if we should keep them an argument that the redirects are harmless is incorrect). But I don't see what the ability to read has to do with anything. You have to read down most of the page before finding out that this isn't even an article about the person you were searching for. The harmless solution is to have two separate articles. anthony (see warning) 14:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Good decision. Geogre 02:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - redirect is confusing, only notable for being gay in public (which translates into not being notable). -- Cyrius|✎ 02:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect. Not notable outside of Westerwelle's bio. Postdlf 06:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Don't like redirect, I'm new but that is very much not expected behavior. I don't think we should assume people who would be confused will leave. That is not how a redirect should work. rhyax 11:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- So do you think we should keep it as a separate page or delete it? anthony (see warning) 11:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 13:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as stand-alone article. Agree with Anthony. --Dittaeva 20:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. If the redirect is reversed but no additional content is added to the article, please change my vote to a delete. Insufficient evidence has been presented of notability to justify a stand-alone article. Rossami 21:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as a redirect or delete; insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
