Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Weber (media researcher)

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. This is why, at an admin's discretion, we relist. ✗plicit 05:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Weber (media researcher)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Stefan Weber has no international relevancy. He is minimally relevant in the German-speaking world. He has a lemma in the German-language Wikipedia that has been in deletion discussions for years. Why he has an international lemma here and thus advertises himself, I don't understand and it is not covered by the Wikipedia rules regarding relevance. It can and must therefore be deleted. Everyone-is-awesome (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit:: Why is this article still not deleted? As there is no single argument to keep this article from any user, I don't understand, why it is still online 11 days after the start of the deletion-process and 4 days after your relist. 80.108.253.13 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and be polite. User:Explicit is a dedicated AfD volunteer and did the right thing relisting it. In fact, we can relist it again if we wish. Missvain (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the German encyclopedia decides to keep it, we probably will as well. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean, that every locally relevant person, without any international relevancy can have an international lema? Cause then I will start to copy a lot of persons into the english wikipedia.80.108.253.13 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of detailing why the sources are inadequate. Geschichte (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes absolutely no difference whether I like him or not. But I would like to know what criteria this lema should fulfil. Other entries are constantly being deleted that have much more relevance than this entry.80.108.253.13 (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there are sufficient books to presume that it meets WP:AUTHOR. It would help if reviews of his books were added --then there would be no question about notability by our rules. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he seems to pass WP:GNG on coverage such as this and plenty of other sources in this and the German version of the article. And yes, if someone is notable in Germany they're notable elsewhere, and if the IP wishes to start translating articles of notable people without coverage on English wikipedia that would be great. Rusalkii (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2021 (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.