- 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. Per SNOW--obviously. Drmies ( talk) 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Detlef Seif
- Detlef Seif ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough sources to pass BLP notablity Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment While he is a German Bundestag MP, I do not believe that is sufficient reason to have an article in English. I saw that the German version of this topic is available, and an MP of a country, in my opinion, only warrants a page in that country's language.Keep meets WP:POLITICIAN but needs expansion. DeviantAttitude ( talk) 14:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but with this "argument" you could delete every article about German or every other country's topics or persons. Why is English Wikipedia only for English or American persons? Nonsense.--
Gerry1214 (
talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- You failed to understand what I meant. However after checking WP:POLITICIAN, I changed my comment to Keep because it meets the requirements. I should note that you are very defensive about the article that you created, without presenting counter arguments or reasons for the nom to fail. You should've said that it meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN and you were set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviantAttitude ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but with this "argument" you could delete every article about German or every other country's topics or persons. Why is English Wikipedia only for English or American persons? Nonsense.--
Gerry1214 (
talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As a member of the Bundestag, a federal German legislative body, the subject passes WP:NPOL. There also appears to be media coverage of the subject available from German-language news sources like Der Spiegel and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. /wiae /tlk 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:NPOL says nothing about non-English-speaking politicians, and WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically gives a Japanese example. I therefore believe that a member of the Bundestag is inherently notable, and that a properly sourced article on such a person should be kept. ubiquity ( talk) 15:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep obviously. Both per WP:NPOL but with all the press he has received this week, likely also per WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NPOL. An elected member of a national legislature. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not to pile on but this individual clearly meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. I'd really like to hear from the original nominator in regards to their thought process before nominating (and perhaps suggest they withdraw the nomination). -- Non-Dropframe talk 15:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A member of any country's national legislature is always notable per WP:NPOL, and that notability is not limited to the Wikipedia of their country's own primary language — there are plenty of potential reasons why an English speaking reader might need access to information about a German MP, including but not limited to the facts that (a) there are English speakers living in Germany, and (b) he's currently in the international news. Certainly we would like the article to become longer and more substantive than it is, but that's a reason for improvement rather than deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 17:41, 12 May 2016 (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.
- 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. Per SNOW--obviously. Drmies ( talk) 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Detlef Seif
- Detlef Seif ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough sources to pass BLP notablity Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment While he is a German Bundestag MP, I do not believe that is sufficient reason to have an article in English. I saw that the German version of this topic is available, and an MP of a country, in my opinion, only warrants a page in that country's language.Keep meets WP:POLITICIAN but needs expansion. DeviantAttitude ( talk) 14:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but with this "argument" you could delete every article about German or every other country's topics or persons. Why is English Wikipedia only for English or American persons? Nonsense.--
Gerry1214 (
talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- You failed to understand what I meant. However after checking WP:POLITICIAN, I changed my comment to Keep because it meets the requirements. I should note that you are very defensive about the article that you created, without presenting counter arguments or reasons for the nom to fail. You should've said that it meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN and you were set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviantAttitude ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but with this "argument" you could delete every article about German or every other country's topics or persons. Why is English Wikipedia only for English or American persons? Nonsense.--
Gerry1214 (
talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As a member of the Bundestag, a federal German legislative body, the subject passes WP:NPOL. There also appears to be media coverage of the subject available from German-language news sources like Der Spiegel and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. /wiae /tlk 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: WP:NPOL says nothing about non-English-speaking politicians, and WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically gives a Japanese example. I therefore believe that a member of the Bundestag is inherently notable, and that a properly sourced article on such a person should be kept. ubiquity ( talk) 15:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep obviously. Both per WP:NPOL but with all the press he has received this week, likely also per WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NPOL. An elected member of a national legislature. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not to pile on but this individual clearly meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. I'd really like to hear from the original nominator in regards to their thought process before nominating (and perhaps suggest they withdraw the nomination). -- Non-Dropframe talk 15:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A member of any country's national legislature is always notable per WP:NPOL, and that notability is not limited to the Wikipedia of their country's own primary language — there are plenty of potential reasons why an English speaking reader might need access to information about a German MP, including but not limited to the facts that (a) there are English speakers living in Germany, and (b) he's currently in the international news. Certainly we would like the article to become longer and more substantive than it is, but that's a reason for improvement rather than deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 17:41, 12 May 2016 (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.