Ross Enamait ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I had the article imported from de:Ross Enamait, so I wasn't aware of its deletion history. Todays deletion was made because the article had been deleted earlier per deletion discussion (which I do not know). Former deletions were made due to "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)" and "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

As an author of four books (see article) and contributor to several others, quoted by several Google Scholar hits and producing 137,000 google hits, he should be important enough for WP, I think. -- Antiachtundsechziger ( talk) 10:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• The issue is that a deletion discussion in 2007 determined that Mr. Enamait was not notable, and the article you wrote didn't include anything new that wasn't in the version of the article deleted in 2007. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I am very reluctant to delete an article on a subject with a deWP article, for their standards of notability are usually higher than ours. But, checking the current de:WP article, he has written 4 books--Worldcat shows 5, none of which are in more than two US libraries. His books on physical fitness are not the sort of books libraries often buy, but I'd have expected at least a few dozen. And then I saw why--they are all self-published. So This would be a valid speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

deWP standards of notability are high, that is true. But it is also said that all named standards are sufficient but not necessary criteria of WP notability. Enamait's four books are completed by several google, google scholar and google books hits, see above. Would keeping the article do any harm, compared to loosing information by deleting? -- Antiachtundsechziger ( talk) 12:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

a great many of those hits are from his own publications ot other sites associated with him. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Rather than simply importing I think you'll have more luck if you write the article and dig out new sources yourself. If he's done anything notable since 2007 there's a possibility that an AfD would find that he's gained sufficient notability since. If you can't write it such that it makes a claim to importance and is substantially changed from the version that was deleted during the prior discussion then it isn't going to survive speedy deletion while if you can and there is still a controversy the next AfD for that article, not DRV, is the place to argue notability.-- Talain ( talk) 16:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. There's no evidence that his notability has improved since the 2007 AFD. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply