Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berliner Tageszeitung


 * 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 delete. Ignoring all the very similar non-policy based !votes, consensus is clearly to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Berliner Tageszeitung

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Although categorized as newspaper, this is a very unimportant website of unknown origin. The owners (according to the "Impressum" now located in China) seem to have a strong interest to keep the article here as proof of relevance, but in fact, this website is not notable and the "newspaper" was never printed (since WW2). The article also contains no reliable sources. In german Wikpedia it has been frequently created and deleted and is now create-protected after several discussions, here the last one. Hyperdieter (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The wrong information is also pushed into other articles, e.g. Alimzhan_Tokhtakhunov, Solntsevskaya Bratva and even as source in Murder of Oksana Makar. It es even listed in List_of_prizes,_medals_and_awards, although absolutely unknown in Germany. An article about the former editor-in-chief Reiko Opitz from Der Spiegel in poor translation. --Hyperdieter (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was too slow --Hyperdieter (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC).


 * From what I can see it seems that there are are at least two notable historical publications with this title, but the one described in this article does not appear to be notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is to seen without any emotions not any Reason to delete this Article, because 1) this Newspaper exist not before 2006, to say anything about WW2 is strange and have not any Reason! Maybe the Editor "Hyperdieter" from Germany have a own Problem with the Newspaper him self, but acc. to the Wikipedia Policy the Article is correct, includet the Judgement and trademark dispute! But when Hyperdieter feels better in his Life, than he can be proud of his strange Application for cancellation of this Article, and when this is really all to make the Life of Hyperdieter better than do what your want and make your Life a little bit better, Bravo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:7:441:441:D64A:1202:261A (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no reason to delete this article historically usable because of trademark dispute and judgement https://web.archive.org/web/20140701215803/http://berlinertageszeitung.com/images/stories/Berlin/Judgement%20Berliner%20Tageszeitung%20vs%20Berliner%20Zeitung%20-%202007.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:5:43B:43B:9EC7:7C63:557B (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * why to delete this article? Article is useful and he make sense, valuable because of trademark dispute! Hyperdieter it seems you have personal reasons agaist the owner of the newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:3:420:420:B6B5:C541:8F88 (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After read the Article of SPIEGEL (full of sensless Gosip) I ask me, witch Problem have Hyperdieter (maybe personal reasons?) in fact I see not any Reason to delete this Article, the Article stays in accordance with the WP Policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8BC0:17D0:8CC2:4421:7B2B:B25D (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have still been unable to find any significant coverage of this Berliner Tageszeitung in independent reliable sources, including sources in German. Involvement in a trademark dispute doesn't confer notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * do not delete. It is maliciously to say thats not posible to find significant coverrage about "Berliner Tageszeitung"! I ask me as uninvolved Person: "what is the real Problem for this Application for cancellation by "Hyperdieter" from Germany? Is it envy or boredom? In fact, the Newspaper "Berliner Tageszeitung" exist from 2006, it is a registred Trademark (from 2006 with extension until 2026) and the Website is like by all other Newspapers on our Planet! The Newspaper is relevant and all other what is write here in this "delete talking" is for me sensless poor gosip! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:5:41E:41E:524B:7CFD:613A (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than accuse Hyperdieter and me of malice why not just point to some of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that you say exists? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and salt. After reading the German Wikipedia discussion, it becomes apparent that this is not in fact a physical newspaper, as the title would suggest, but a Chinese-owned German language news website that has appropriated a legitimate-sounding German newspaper name. The German Wikipedia discussion concluded, and I concur, that there is no reliable third-party coverage of this news website that would make it notable per WP:GNG. The many IPs commenting above as well as the extremely mediocre quality of the site's journalistic content indicate that the whole thing might be some sort of vehicle for commercial or political promotion backed by a professional promotional apparatus, which relies on a Wikipedia entry to give it some semblance of legitimacy. Salting it is therefore appropriate to prevent recreation.  Sandstein   10:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why delete? And to says it, the article is fully ok, and as information it's a online newspaper and all other decides like i see in the past the highest court from Berlin in Germany! The Name "Berliner Tageszeitung" is a official Trademark, like all newspapers have it worldwide, from 2006 - minimum to 2026, so all is legal by european law! Not delete. And as for me to says it, this dispute is strange and looks like as a personal interest from the applicant! 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.94.192.26 (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is essentially a fake article about a fake newspaper. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not delete. That it's not a "fake newspaper" decided like I also read the highest court from Berlin at 2007, and in the article stays only what is it for newspaper, so I see not and little "fake" https://web.archive.org/web/20140701215803/http://berlinertageszeitung.com/images/stories/Berlin/Judgement%20Berliner%20Tageszeitung%20vs%20Berliner%20Zeitung%20-%202007.png - the only what I see is envy and unconstructive ramblings in this discussion! And to say it without emotions, 90% of the companys behind a newspaper are not based in their country, like Axel Springer SE, so please to says: "it is in China" is not a "proof" for a "fake newspaper"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:7:41A:41A:6B6F:8E70:19FA (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, the way to get this kept is to demonstrate that this Berliner Tageszeitung has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you do that then all of the "delete" opinions will become invalid. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This "newspaper" looks like a copycat version of the Berliner Zeitung to me. Originally it even had the exact same style headline but obviously by court order they had to change that.
 * So this one is "known colloquially as BTZ"? Yeah, sure. I doubt that it is known as anything colloquially. What a coincidence that the Berliner Zeitung is in fact known colloquially as BZ.
 * Their Impressum (Terms of use) is fascinating too. €15.50 per minute for a phone call to contact the company. Why would that be, if they have company headquarters in Berlin, as the article wants to make us believe? Sorry, but I find it hard to believe what I read in the article.
 * BTW, trying to save this including some links just now, Wikipedia tells me that "The following link has triggered a protection filter: berlinertageszeitung.de. Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked." Now why would that be? --84.190.84.207 (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not delete. Sorry, I understand the german language very well, in the court order from 2007 stays not even one word of a "style", to spread here lies is immoral and help this discussion nothing! The true is that stays clearly in the court order, that Berliner Zeitung an Berliner Tageszeitung are not confusing and that the Berliner Tageszeitung win the court trial, this a fact! And btw, when the Berliner Zeitung sees in the past and actual only one milimeter chance to block the .de domain of Berliner Tageszeitung, than i am sure, they try to do it! But even this very specially court trial, and the fact that the Berliner Tageszeitung is a online newspaper, is more than a reason do Not delete this article. Also is a fact that in plus/minus 10 years the print newspapers will be not more exist, because pint newspapers are newspapers from yesterday, because they printed in the night before their sales begin. And to says it clear, for me is it fair to know what cost me a call, whatever is the price. Also I see that the owner of the trademark of Berliner Tageszeitung is the owner of the Berliner Tageblatt, maybe this is the next candidate to delete? lol. As external vistitor is see here at least not one reason to delete the artice Berliner Tageszeitung, the only what I really see is that the highest court of the city Berlin give a online newspaper right and that maybe some "journalists" not like this court decission from 2007! And in the end I'm sure, the Berliner Tageszeitung exist now more than 11 years, they will also exist in the next 11 years, when the most of the "writers" here are not more interest in this "interesting" discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.46.101.70 (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't about whether this is a genuine newspaper or about trademarks or other intellectual property, but about whether it passes our notability guidelines by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I understand German well enough to see that no such coverage has been cited either in the article or in this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right. The only independent reliable sources appear to be the Patentamt (o.k., so the thing exists) and the law suit documentation. Come to think of it, the latter might have been the only promising claim to notability, had the scandal and its documentation been a bit more than a tempest in a teapot.
 * I guess the guidelines that would apply here are WP:WEBCRIT, and I don't see any of that in the article. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Acc to the "WP Guidelines" is the article correct, all other is a strange discussion. And for it was really funny to see how strong is the miserable envy here. I was really amused to see that the Founder of this Newspaper have a great Idea, makes big Money and other People are only envy. First it was a stupid talking about a Newspaper after "WW2", than all here understand that this App. from "Hyperdieter" was poor bullshit, later it was a talking of a battle between Berlin Newspapers and now is it the "WP Guideline". Last but not least it will be at the end only a sensless talking from someone how have nothing in the Pocket and other Peopple there make big Money. LOL. Btw, I find the article "Berliner Tageszeitung" interesting and sensfull, so that I say without any emotion Not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.147.99 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Subject appears to be failing WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Anup   [Talk]
 * Not delete because any sources of the article is proved, to use WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG is absolute strange and not applicable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:0:44A:44A:795C:18B9:AB9 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I use 1 hour of my life to read this discussion, after I tried to find out something by Wikipedia about "Berliner Tageszeitung", I saw 42.800 folowers by twitter and more than 37.300 articles from "Berliner Tageszeitung" by twitter http://www.twitter.com/blntageszeitung than I saw that the "Berliner Tageszeitung" exists from 2005 and had a court disput with big media monopolists and I saw the "Berliner Tageszeitung" won this court disput, now I ask self why does it need to delete this article and my decission is, that it doesnt exist any reason, so not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.117.118.195 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is getting worse. The IP user with the variable IP location and the invariable accent is now undoing improvements to the article, reverting to false claims.
 * I guess it's a case of unconsciously wanting the article deleted. Well, if they insist on making the article worse, I'm not going to interfere again. --93.212.226.53 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I not understand why this article have to been delete? I look and controll anything, the newspaper is 11 years on the market and even the part of the "Auberge Award" is true. So that I say not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.233.224 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After I read all here, because i tryed to find something about berlin newspapers and after I look all informations about the berliner tageszeitung at the word wide web, I say also from my side NOT DELETE this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.36.37.205 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * i read all and my decission is not delete this article! the article was for me usefull! i don't see any little reason to delete this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.46.101.70 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 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.