Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Germany. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Germany|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Germany related AfDs

Scan for Germany related Prods
Scan for Germany related TfDs

Germany

Princess Maria of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg (1935–2018)

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

Her husband is also undergoing Afd. There is no Archduchy of Austria to be an archduchess of, and that's her only claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augmentation industries

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

Promotional article for a short-lived non-notable company Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Germany. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Didillon

AfDs for this article:

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

There is almost no coverage of Christophe Didillon or his art and he hasn't had any significant exhibitions. Ynsfial (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Germany. Ynsfial (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baagebach

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

Very poorly referenced since at least 2013 - only given source appears to be an excel file. I'm not seeing much on de.wiki which would help meet the notability standards here for inclusion, interested if anyone can find anything else. JMWt (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Bielefeld mass shooting

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article, no evidence of WP:LASTING coverage. E_F⁵ 14:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are plenty of news sources out there, but almost all are extremely short or are just replicating the AP news release from yesterday. By the time this AfD discussion has run its course, it will be clearer whether this event has lasting coverage. I can't make any predictions on that. Recon rabbit 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:RUSHDELETE, unable to determine if this will be notable until it has run its course in the news. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is plenty of international coverage with sources supplied to prove that. If news stories continue to come out then the should be a keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, but the article could use a lot more information than currently as is. Madeleine (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promises that it may be notable some day are not a valid reason to create or keep an article. This is especially the case when it's about routine news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move protect until it's sufficiently improved unless that can be done during the course of the AfD. ALso, more time in draft space will allow determination of whether there's any continuing coverage. Star Mississippi 23:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freudenberg IT

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not to be confused with Freudenberg Group. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Firm is defunct. WP:SPA creator. Imcdc Contact 09:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Computing, and Germany. Imcdc Contact 09:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Amm

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

Not notable person Edit.pdf (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, I don’t see any significant coverage here. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is salvegable,one can find decent shows and reviews and work in the SFMoMa collection--Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on this review: [1], and these collections: [2], [3], [4], [5], and his exhibition record which can easily be found in a WP:BEFORE search. The artist meets WP:NARTIST guideline for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next German federal election

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, can't find any reliable sources for this specific event (most point to the recently concluded election). ToThAc (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. ToThAc (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elections in Germany. Generic perennial problem, can be redirected to appropriate dated target at later date. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ToThAc is technically right, but we know there will be a next election and we know reliable sources will appear pretty quickly. There are (sourced) things we can say about the election now. We might as well keep the article rather than just re-creating it in a few weeks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this article will be kept, it really should be renamed, probably "2029 German federal election". jolielover♥talk 16:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really care about this situation???? Useful1 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why delete if we're gonna have to have the article at some point anyway? Pointless. I'd get if it was the article stating a definite year, but it's just "next", which i don't see as violating WP:CRYSTAL. PLMandarynka (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I had initially made the article in Draft:Next German federal election, but moved the content to this page once someone else had made it. I think at this point it is a tad too early for the page to exist, given that no meaningful thing can be said about the election beyond when it is expected to be held. Once more information comes out, including the formation of the next government and opinion polls, then it is obvious that this article will exist, as is the case for other countries. Gust Justice (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Car234 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles about the next British, American, Austrian and Latvian elections (just to name a few), so there is precedent. I'd also keep name, as the article does not currently have a definite date for the election, and the next Chancellor (most likely Friedrich Merz) can call a snap election, like the one that happened last Sunday. maemolol, arbiter of æ (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear precedent as laid out by others. WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable and pedantic. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per other editors' reasoning. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep Well, we know it is going to happen. Unless some event happens that is like, CRAZY. We do not have evidence for that. I would alsoKeep name because we don't know if Merz will call a snap election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete The actual content is a Frankenstein's monster of content from other articles. We do not need the German electoral system spelled out every time they have an election (notwithstanding that it could be changed by the time there is an actual election), and the current composition of the legislature and names of its leaders properly belong to an article on the current government. Take that out, and this is a placeholder for "there is expected to be an election," presumably naming a date on or by which it is to happen. We really need to stop creating these "next election" articles and wait until an election is called or draws nigh to start the article on that election. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, couldn't disagree more, I've found "Next [Country] election" articles to be a great resource as poll and leader aggregators. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; per consistency: there is an article Next United Kingdom general election; 2028 United States presidential election; Next French legislative election – Do I need to give further examples? Why should Germany be treated differently here? Mangoe's arguments in all honor, but that would have to be clarified in general. As things stand, there are such next-election-articles and this should be possible regardless of the country.Alektor89 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Events certain to take place do not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Passes GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I generally think there should always be an article about the next national election. This will be a good place to put opinion polls, write about the background once the coalition is formed, etc. JSwift49 00:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while WP:CRYSTAL certainly does recognise the possibility to have articles about future events, it does not do so in the absence of reliable sourcing. It's why we don't have an article for the 2048 United States presidential election (despite attempts to draft one). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as someone pointed out in the talk page and mentioned above, there exists a next United Kingdom general election, so precedent is there. Content-wise, the background information is grounded in the German law, and current distribution of members is known, and I expect the opinion polls for the next election to emerge very soon. It is also not like having 20XY (e.g., 2029) election page, that I agree should not exist at this point in time. Damghani 03:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polling is about voting intention when the poll is carried out, by itself it does not tell us about the election itself. Content is already available at Elections in Germany, it does not need to be repeated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Goldsztajn: Thanks for your reply. A few points: (1) as mentioned in the Elections in Germany, and as I referred to others below, "state" level future election pages are untouched, which makes me wonder why concern is about "federal" election. (2) I don't see polling results included in Elections in Germany. Furthermore, usual the questions in the German polls is usually "what is your vote, if the "next" election would be this Sunday", so I can see why polling results should not be included in the Elections in Germany page. (3) There are discussions about bringing back the "uncapped" parliament seats, and such "temporal" changes and discussion can be recorded in this page. Damghani 07:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Damghani (1) WP:OTHERSTUFF (2) It's debateable whether polling at this point indicates anything (and it doesn't even exist) (3) all of that relates to debate about the electoral system, it's hypothetical and not implemented, so it's not actually about the *next* election, but rather the electoral system (and its reform) (4) where's the sourcing? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a Next Ukrainian presidential election, Next South Korean presidential election, Next Libyan presidential election, Next New Zealand general election, Next Malian parliamentary election, Next Sudanese general election, Next North Korean parliamentary election, Next Palestinian presidential election and so on, and several of those are rather more in doubt that the next German federal election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: Thanks for gathering this exhaustive list. I just saw that there are pages "next" for Saxony and Brandenburg elections, "state" elections that are "expected" to happen in the same year as federal election, among other "next" state election pages that are far in the future and have less sources compared to the federal election page... Damghani 07:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next North Korean parliamentary election? While I can laugh (a little) at the title of that article (or cry with some of the others), they *contain* sourcing as they are actually about delayed elections (DPRK, Mali, Libya, Ukraine, Palestine). South Korea is relevant because of the ongoing impeachment process. New Zealand is the only one which is unambiguously about a future event. Not a single keep !vote here has demonstrated the existence of any sourcing to justify this as a stand alone page at this point in time. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's going to be another federal election in Germany, that is certain. This doesn't say when it will happen, that would be CRYSTAL. Plus we already have 2028 United States presidential election, which quite frankly I think is less likely to happen than another German election.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per British, American etc. precedent. CR (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We already have articles years in advance. This includes the United States, the United Kingdom, and others. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 01:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the (apparently?) only proponent of deletion keeps asking for sources, here are some press articles in which the 2029 election (especially the date) is discussed. The question is often whether elections will now always be held in winter, which is historically quite unusual in Germany (-> yes, as long as there is not another snap election, the election dates will remain between the end of January and the beginning of March). There is also speculation about how the AfD's polling figures will develop by then:
https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.wann-naechste-bundestagswahl-2029-mhsd.cec566e9-23ff-4be8-8cea-ac63ca45f9eb.html

https://www.br.de/radio/bayern1/naechste-bundestagswahl-100.html

https://www.fr.de/politik/wie-die-afd-bis-zur-naechsten-bundestagswahl-bedeutungslosigkeit-ergebnisse-zr-93592319.html

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Die-AfD-bleibt-fuer-die-naechste-Wahl-2029-brandgefaehrlich-article25585250.html

Even a CSU candidate (unsuccessful this time) has declared his candidacy for the next election (https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/augsburg/augsburg-bundestagswahl-volker-ullrich-will-2029-wieder-kandidieren-106126736). So that point would also be clarified imho. Alektor89 (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles are the same, simply indicating the Basic Law as relates to elections. No need for anything other than a sentence that can be incorporated into Elections in Germany; at this point WP:NOPAGE. The third article is admittedly more substantial, but it is primarily about the AfD and material that would be far more suited to the AfD page. By itself, it would simply be UNDUE for a page on the next German election at this time. The fourth article is about international press reaction to the 2025 election, it's not about 2029. Finally, a local candidate announcing their candidature is not encyclopedic information for an article about a national election of 80+ million people in four years time, but it certainly can be included in the politican's own article. FWIW, I'm suggesting redirect here, but there are delete and drafify suggestions as well. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A next German federal election is inevitable. Lefcentreright Discuss 12:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Toufa

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER, and the only mention of her music I could find from a reliable source comes from an LA Times covering Tommy Lee's engagement, which is also one of only two sources within the Wikipedia article. Seems like a no-brainer. Melonkunn (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Germany, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added more sources and releases and improved formatting. Rumrtm73 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, digging deeper, the article does not fail WP:SINGER, as "Sofi Needs a Ladder" that features Sofia literally appeared in UK and Canada's national music charts. The sources that I added complement the article, and it doesn't seem like it fails WP:BASIC either. Rumrtm73 (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a no-brainer; rather just a poorly-written article that needs some polishing and overhaul. Rumrtm73 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Zulehner

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

self promotion, unreliable sources, artist of absolutely no relevance. See discussion page. (proposed by 95.90.127.86, 18:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)) --Achim Adotz (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic relevance. The abundance of references is confusing and mostly leads to dubious websites of hotels, shops, tanning salons, Facebook and self-promotional sites. No external reviews to be found. Planetblue (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and South Africa. Netherzone (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There’s a lot there, but it is all written promotionally and there seems to be little significance of the subject. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not speedily, based on lack of notability, failure to meet WP:NARTIST and significant WP:PROMO. No significant exhibitions, and the only evidence of works in a permanent collection is the statement that his delightful paintings have been placed on permanent display in various pizzerias which doesn't qualify as a notable museum or national gallery. This highly promotional COI entry has been heavily edited by the artist and his partner based on the first-person prose, and the user name "Atelier ZoooooZ" (ZoooooZ is the artist's moniker). Statements point to self-promotion such as: As artists, we know only too well that an original, handmade, genuine work of art is a lifelong dream for many people...But that's exactly why we, Mumzy Maria Uberstein and Zoooooz Roland Zulehner, have launched a special campaign. and The artwork is simultaneously used as advertising as part of the campaign and Because even as artists we have to make a living and can't give everything away., etc.. Most of the article consists of unsourced puffery, and an excessive number of images uploaded by the artist, WP:NOTWEBHOST. Appears to also fail WP:GNG, as most of the citations are sourced to Facebook, pay-to-play publications, and user-submitted content. Even if reliable sources could be found, the article would qualify for WP:TNT. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that the artist, who is also the creator of the article, goes by two WP user names: User:Atelier ZoooooZ which is a shared account with his artistic partner (as per a discussion on Commons, and their Commons user page); and also by User:Beweinding who created this article and states on their user page that they are Roland Zulehner. Not sure if that is relevant to this AfD, but wanted to point this out. Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NARTIST. I am not finding any reliable sourcing for the claims made in the article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NARTIST and WP:PROMO. --jergen (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A truly elaborate portrayal of encyclopedic irrelevance. RAL1028 (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article highly entertaining, as it reaches new heights of irrelevance. I laughed, I cried (of laughter), I cried some more (of laughter). Sentences like "The Arslan Kebap Restaurant is a place where cultures merge and form a community." should be kept for eternity, somewhere. Otherwise delete. 95.90.127.86 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support to avoid a speedy close and give the artist time to copy the article if he hasn't done so already. He has put in a great deal of time and design effort to put the page together, just hasn't fully understood how Wikipedia works. It is an encyclopedia, which means no editorializing and must be sourced to reputable sources and not blogs and Facebook links. To Roland, what do you think are the best sources? Have enjoyed the photos of your work. A nice try in writing and illustrating a page, likely just missed the mark of it being an encyclopedic approach to summarizing notable artistic creations. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to add that this elaborate biography sounds like a creation of Chat Gtp. Unable to find sources establishing notability. Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia will have a new article about Roland, pls keep in mind that he is more of an entertainer than a contemporary artist. He once wrote a book (Ich geh eins trinken) about having a drink. Yes, that's all there was, a whole book where Roland describes in great lenghts how one picks a bar, orders a drink. Even how to drink drinks. Best book ever. Also he wrote a book about how to get rich with Facebook. Two months later he wrote a book about why one should delete his or hers Facebook account. All his books were very entertaining, very funny to read. 95.90.183.207 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And all were selfpublished. 95.90.127.86 (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meetWP:NARTIST and Fails WP:NARTIST WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Tsvetkov

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:SPORTSBASIC, and WP:GNG. Lacks independent significant coverage. Only competed at the junior level and never medaled in the one junior figure skating competition we recognize as significant. 4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Skating, Germany, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bronze medal at the Junior Grand Prix Final is a notable achievement, although I realize it is not included on the list of criteria for WP:NSKATE. That competition is one notch below the World Junior Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not to include that level of achievement at the SNG for figure skaters when it was crafted by the community, so from a wiki community guideline point of view it isn’t notable unless there is GNG level sourcing that supports that. The junior level of skating doesn’t typically get SIGCOV outside of the World Junior Championship medalists.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Steinel

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:SPORTSBASIC, and WP:GNG. Only competed at the junior level and never medaled in the one junior figure skating competition we recognize as significant. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Skating, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bronze medal at the Junior Grand Prix Final is a notable achievement, although I realize it is not included on the list of criteria for WP:NSKATE. That competition is one notch below the World Junior Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not to include that level of achievement at the SNG for figure skaters when it was crafted by the community, so from a wiki community guideline point of view it isn’t notable unless there is GNG level sourcing that supports that. The junior level of skating doesn’t typically get SIGCOV outside of the World Junior Championship medalists.4meter4 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am also unable to find enough coverage to support keeping the article. The win could be notable with some good sources; I tried a newspaper search, nothing turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northolt Branch Observatories

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

Appears to be a hobbyist observatories or something that has a handful of telescopes. After checking with Wikiproject Astronomy, I got a response that its not notable. Having done a basic WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing this group meeting WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Science, Astronomy, Europe, Germany, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the article creator): I am not going to vote because of WP:COI, but I'd like to point out that the article has been quite outdated. Uncle G has started to expand it a bit with more recent coverage (thanks!), and I hope it can get enough coverage to pass notability standards. Uncle G, I'm not sure if Lintott's book mentions the episode of The Sky at Night that featured the "discovery" of BepiColombo? It's the May 2020 episode ("Locked down but looking up"). That may be a useful addition. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G:, can you name the WP:THREESOURCES that you suggest as the bases for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG anchoring purpose? Graywalls (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To repeat my comments from WT:AST: "There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center e.g. [6]. I don't see anything particularly unusual about this one. Their telescopes are small hobbyist instruments; admittedly they indicate a serious hobbyist, but no more than you would find at a typical local astronomy society. I was unable to find any substantial coverage on Google Scholar or ADS. Of the references currently cited in the article, there are two unreliable blogs, a Facebook page, and a dead link. The NBC article has merely one sentence that mentions this observatory in passing. The only source with substantial coverage is the HNA article, which appears to be a German local newspaper; I cannot assess its reliability. Even if we accept HNA in good faith, a single source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG." A quick search did not lead me to additional reliable sources. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can point to substantial coverage that I've missed. Modest Genius ^talk 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Yeah, unfortunately I ~~cannot~~ am not sure if I can add any further sigcov that goes beyond passing mentions. [7] (about 2024 YR4) mentions me with attribution, but again, that's just a mention, like many others that were published about that story in the past few weeks that quoted me. Renerpho (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Struck/edited, as I'm not so sure about this anymore. Renerpho (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We did a couple of TV interviews in the late 2010s and early 2020s, about what we do at NBO. I'll see if I can find recordings... Renerpho (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the owner and/or operator of the observatory, then you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as well as with the article itself. I don't think we can weight the opinion of a user with a CoI. Posting 13 separate comments (more than everyone else combined) doesn't help your case either. Modest Genius ^talk 12:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Yes. This discussion started with a self-report at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Renerpho. I had assumed you came here from there. Renerpho (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the disclosure, which seems very relevant here. I had not seen it, because it wasn't mentioned in this discussion. I was alerted to this AfD via WT:AST. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[8] -- Interview from Feb. 5th, which got published today. It's not independent (considering it's an interview with me), but maybe it's worth adding, I don't know. Some pictures of the observatory around 2:40... some discussion of what we do, and what David Rankin has got to do with it. The interview with David (same playlist) is without my direct contribution, and he talks about me a bit, although I think he doesn't specifically name the observatory... Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of them (2019),[9] discussing [10][11]. We did another longer one in 2018 from Northolt directly, but I can't find a recording right now. Renerpho (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more (2018);[12] not the one I was referring to there in the previous comment, I'm not sure that one is available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third one (from 2017).[13] Very brief one, and a bit improvised. It's no coincidence that all three come from the same YouTube channel. They're the only ones we talked to who seem to have their recordings available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIRS Be completely independent of the article subject. pieces in which the organization itelf is actively involved can not be considered independent. They're not forbidden from being cited, but they simply don't lend credit towards notability Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls: I think [14] passes that bar. I wasn't even aware that that story had been covered since 2020 (and outside Lintott's book which this is apparently based on) before searching for it now. Renerpho (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This NBC News story from 2018 goes into a bit more detail about what we do, even though it's also just a couple of sentences. The situation is similar for This Livescience article from 2019. This is an interview we did with QHYCCD, the producer of the camera we used at that time; it's not exactly independent coverage though.

There are a couple of papers related to our collaboration with IAWN, including [15][16][17]; only the Apophis campaign was one that we were involved in beyond just collecting data (compare, for example, the 2021 section at [18]). The 2022 campaign got some news coverage as well, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage (example). There's also this short paper, which unfortunately came just too late for the radar folks at Goldstone to adjust their pointing... Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center -- While technically true, most of them are inactive, or have never observed any Near Earth asteroids. Our most active station (Z80) is at #37 in the all-time list worldwide, professional observatories included.[19] (Some of the codes on Peter Birtwhistle's map don't appear in that list because they've never observed anything.) As of 9 February 2025, 2859 of all 151553 observations in discovery MPECs (or about 2%) come from that station.[20] Renerpho (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the BepiColombo (2020 GL2) story, this IFLScience article from 2024 may be a good addition. At least it has more than just a few sentences (the entire article is about something we did). Renerpho (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This popsci.com article goes into more detail about the 2019 story covered by Livescience that I mentioned above. It may pass sigcov. Renerpho (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outfox Magazine, a (now defunct?) Canadian magazine, ran a feature about us a couple of years ago, but I don't think that was ever available online. I could look up the details (issue number, pages etc.) if needed. Renerpho (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there were articles in some London newspapers around 2017-2019, about the observatory in general; I'm not even sure which ones. Either way, those will only have been available in print, I think (I've looked online and couldn't find anything). Renerpho (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is limited to blip of coverage around 2018, it may fail WP:SUSTAINED Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be worth getting a bit more input on the nature of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

Germany

Princess Maria of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg (1935–2018)

Augmentation industries

Christophe Didillon

Baagebach

2025 Bielefeld mass shooting

Freudenberg IT

Markus Amm

Next German federal election

Sofia Toufa

Roland Zulehner

Vladimir Tsvetkov

Miriam Steinel

Northolt Branch Observatories

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also