Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Glaenzer

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. Sandstein 07:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Glaenzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable person. Retired from prior work and notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP Misterpottery (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is pretty rubbish as is, but he passes GNG due to the SA case: Bloomberg, BBC, London Evening Standard (meh on RS terms), Tech Crunch, Telegraph, etc. NOTINHEIRTED is a poor essay, and NCORP doesn't cover BLPs. BLPCRIME is a consideration here for the rewrite. Thanks, ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPCRIME would advocate for total deletion given insignficance of person Misterpottery (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. He was convicted. the relatively unknown part has no bearing on notability. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone with any conviction should have a page? That doesn't make sense. @L3X1 and L3X1: Misterpottery (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't make sense. I didn't say "anyone with conviction can have a page". BLPCRIME does not cover notability, it is about the legal responsibility of editors to not further damaging hearsay. As Glaenzer is convicted in a court of law, BLPcrime does nto apply in this situation, and I apologize for even bringing it up in the first place. My bad.

• Delete - I would think that absolutely everybody would be happy if this article disappeared. If WP:BLPCRIME doesn't do it, try WP:IAR. I just don't see how having this article improves the encyclopedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? "having article…improve encyclopedia"? What's that supposed to mean? AFD≠cleanup. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; notability is not inherited from the notable company. WP:BLP concerns as well, since the crime does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.