Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic

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 of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawing my vote, based on arguments below. Fan-1967 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: #1,851,506 in Bücher. (Do I need to translate this?) Not a bad faith nomination, but both UT and F67 might want to do a little more research. Most of the G-hits I saw were WP mirrors. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Equivalent article was deleted by de: in January 2005 (discussion) Oldelpaso 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:NN translator / author DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Neutral as per further research by Universitytruth Has apparently been the subject of published work - I've added a References section. Dlyons493 Talk 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment/Question I checked out the links but failed to see that he's been the subject of published work. Where are you finding that? Universitytruth 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe the 3 entries in the References section are about him - that said, I don't have access to the printed works to double-check. Dlyons493 Talk
      • Further research shows that this author is WP:NN but has one big fan. See [1], where she posted not only her original (now deleted) German wikipedia article, but also on the same page the German wikipedia discussion, which leaned towards and resulted in delete. Note also that her sources include "the author's homepage" and "telephone conversation with the author." That is WP:OR and smells of WP:VAIN, no? Also, I still find no indication of anything having been written about GACK. I can tell you that Passagen Verlag is also not the most prestigious press... It has done some good work (translating texts of deconstruction into German), but also has a lot of weak pieces as well. It seems to me, with all good will, that GACK is a case-in-point: a deconstructivist wannabe who's gotten some dubious work published in this one press, but has failed to engage the rest of Austria, much less the German-speaking world, much less the English-speaking world. Hope this helps. Universitytruth 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per the German Wikipedia discussion --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a bad-faith nom. Non-notable author, not notable per the German Wikipedia discussion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The German discussion is mostly about vanity and the behaviour of the article's main editor. I think it would have survived if notability had been the only issue. There have been no such problems that I'm aware of with the en.wiki article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know I should be taking a wikibreak, but look at this sentence in the article: "He self-identifies as a deconstructive novelist." It's the self-identification bit that is emblematic here. I can't find a single source of anyone else identifying him as any kind of novelist, much less a deconstructive one, much less a notable one. The only sources I find are on his own webpage, that of his good friend, who edited the German article, and the sales page of Passagen Verlag, which lists several of his works on their backlist. Is the bar for notability really this low? Universitytruth 20:31, 6 July 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.