Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Ehrlich
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 and improve, consensus is that he is notable enough and that sources can/will be found. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Walter Ehrlich
Unrefferenced, no claim of notability, virtually no content, complete orphan. Mdbrownmsw (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The article has had plenty of time to acquire some reliable sources and citations thereof. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. We need to be careful with subjects from the pre-internet era and while Ehrlich doesn't seem to have ever been translated into English, his works are cited particularly in the area of the history of philosophy. I'm looking for usable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is a legacy article of the problematic wikipedian User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg (now banned), who in his obsession with names created thousands of stubby pages of people and locations that happened to have a name he liked. Talking from experience, these things were never hoaxes and had a minimum of notability, but they were often so low in quality that a deletion couldn't be much worse. My prod as part of WP:SU was overturned, but I have no attachment to this page in one way or another. – sgeureka t•c 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 'the authors of multiple academic books are notable, regardless of who created them, and i don't see why whether or not they are in English has much to do with it. In most of the period when this man was writing, English was not the principal language in his subject. His 1965 book is found in 62 worldCat libraries (predominantly english speaking countries--including 45 US & Canadian libraries). For a 1965 German textbook in philosophy, this implies considerable academic recognition. DGG (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment For a non-English work to be a reliable source for the English wikipedia, we need reliable translations of those works. This leaves us back where we started: no reliable sources = no notability. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
-
- No, not in the least. Translating a non controversial source for a non-controversial article is not OR; and if either is controversial, it can be checked. I know enough German to know what the books are about, and so do several other thousand people here. The editors in enWP can communicate in hundreds of different languages. We have never accepted this overly restrictive view in WP, and non-English sources are used throughout, and explicitly permitted. We cover the world, and we use the best sources available. The only meaning of it being the english WP is that the final articles here are in English. anyway, i don't see he is related to this article. if his notability is in publishing books in multiple libraries, how is this affected? 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Oh I agree - translation is not important. Shakespeare would be notable to you, if you were only French speaking and he had never been translated. If I spoke German then I would create a stub on the German wikipedia and cross link it with this article... Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- weak keep Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which requires that sources should be in English to be considered verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment given the books ascribed to him, he must have existed. If deWP had deleted the4 article, that would be helpful information. if they merely never had it, its another matter. DGG (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (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.
