Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hempel


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Hempel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the information is incorrect and intusive Sitathapar (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I think all of references are fake and its better to use from speedy deletion tag Mr.ref (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Short, but perfectly adequately sourced. No sign of anything "fake" in the references, and the coverage is sufficient to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Where does the idea of "fake" come from? Is it because the references are from well known newsoutlets? Yes we know that the media spouts rubbish, but our policy is to collect that rubbish into articles once enough of them spout the same rubbish (i.e. WP:GNG). Obviously some outstanding scandal in the pre-internet era. And probably we will never know who the real perps where. Agathoclea (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not news and that is all the sourcing adds up to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am gob-smacked. called for deletion, asserting a lapse from WP:NOTNEWS...  Hempel's role is described in books like Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks.  Did you bother to perform due diligence, prior to leaving your delete opinion?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable actor in nuclear weapons proliferation, as per solid sources provided, including a book. XavierItzm (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - note: nominator wrote that the article was "intusive" -- they probably meant "intrusive". If someone is an otherwise non-notable person, who finds themself the subject of flash-in-the-pan news coverage for a single event, then we would consider deletion arguments based on intrusiveness.  However, Hempel was a notable person, at the center of a scandal that has generated long-running coverage, such as this one from 2016.
 * We keep inaccurate articles on notable topics, after seeting in motion our usual steps to get them corrected., if you are going to contribute here, never argue that articles should be deleted, simply because you think they are incorrect.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple book apps in a cursory BEFORE. Intrusiveness would not fly for a notable BLP, and definitely not for a long dead bio.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Keep (Assertions that "information is incorrect," and "references are fake" are contravened by WP:RS.) Article needs improvement, but it is solidly sourced and both scholarly articles and books exist form which it can be expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If there are all these alleged good sources and long context, I would like to see them added to this article, instead of just people assering they exist and leaving the article in shambles after a drive-by save of a substandard quality entry in Wikipedia. AfD is not meant for cleanup, but too many editors take this as an excuse to not clean up articles at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY, it's pretty interesting that, according to material and sourcing in the modest improvements made by a couple of editors, this wartime Nazi officer spend decades clandestinely shipping nuclear material and technology around the world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2017 (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.