Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Bartolf


 * 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. Prodego talk  19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian Bartolf

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I originally speedied this article under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). It was re-created, so I'm taking it to AfD to get community input. The article contains no evidence that the subject of the article meets WP:BIO; the external links don't constitute multiple non-trivial coverage of the person himself in independent sources. Also an autobiographical article created by User:Chrbartolf who identifies on his userpage as the subject of the article. Waltonalternate account 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The user and subject of the biography in question is running the Berlin based Gandhi Information Center. I also question the notabitity of this institution. There he is continuisly removing and notability templates. There is also an edit-war since some month on his own notabilty at his birth place Lübeck.--Kresspahl 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Chrbartolf again removed the deletion template from the article Christian Bartolf.--Kresspahl 12:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for probably COI and complete failure to establish notability. All external links are to subject's own writings. --Nonstopdrivel 13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace.--Edtropolis 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * true, but this does not look remotely like a myspace page or function as one. DGG 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as COI of subject that fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources can establish his notability. A fascinating individual, but fascination does not notability make.  Can't tell if the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek reference cited in the article qualifies or not, but wouldn't presume that it does.  LaughingVulcan 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek reference merely show that his own organization has published his work? Or is there more to this listing? SiobhanHansa 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)True, its a National Library. They get every publication published in Germany and have to show it in their catalogue.--Kresspahl 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not Delete: It's all because exaggerating "Kresspahl" does not want Bartolf to be a notable person of Luebeck. Of course, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek does qualify Bartolf's publications! These now given reliable sources establish his notability. Anything else is arbitrary and again dirty policy! Just for getting rid of an entry of a "fascinating individual" whose books have been quoted by many scholars as a reliable source. This "procedure", as "Kresspahl" calls it, should not work this way ... Chrbartolf
 * Delete - The question is not what I want you to be or not. You personly insist on being notable to a city, where no one except me seems to know you. And I only know you from vandalizing the Lübeck article for month. Otherwise your merits would have been claimed at least by some notable third parties there. I am one of the main contributors of Lübeck related articles in the German WP. So its not a personal thing, but you have to accept, that your relevance there is around zero compared to the others like Thomas Mann, Willy Brandt or Günther Grass. Sorry! --Kresspahl 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the minimum standard or WP, or we would have a very small encyclopedia.DGG 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This guy does not appear notable Puppy Mill 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not Delete Aha, Günther Grass has not been born in Lübeck, "Kresspahl". So, he is not from Lübeck, although I appreciate him very much as a writer whose museum is very fine and who has lived in Lübeck for many years. Your criteria of "notable" ("relevance there") are simply ridiculous. That is why you are constantly vandalizing. Your aim is to spoil Christian Bartolf's international reputation as Gandhian scholar and notable writer - bad luck for you! Who are you working for? Chrbartolf 19 June 2007
 * Reply Ah, notable writer. Perhaps then you can indicate the reliable independent sources by which the biographical notability or BLP notability may be verified. Add:  Or, alternatively, please provide in the article the independent citations to reliable sources where the writer's work has been used by "many scholars."  LaughingVulcan 23:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete In Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Christian Bartolf is mentioned as an editor - that's it. In de:WP there's no article either about Christian Bartolf nor about Gandhi Information Center. --MrsMyer 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Perhaps an interesting person from the description, but Interesting does not mean Notable. The sources listed are not independent, so do not satisfy WP:RS, and the serious WP:COI issues lead me to believe there is nothing salvageable here. I would suggest to Chrbartolf that he place a request at requested articles for someone else to write an independent article on this subject. -- Kesh 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite the apparent efforts of the author at this Afd to convince us that this is spam, I think he's notable none the less, as judged by the very extensive list of publications at his website. Secondary sources are however needed. DGG 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the lack of secondary sources, when the article's been around for a while, indicates for itself that the person is not notable. Although I tend to prefer keeping content to deleting it, and usually agree with your interpretations, I think the lack of notability here is pretty clear. If someone adds secondary sources, I'll change my mind. Waltonalternate account 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion. I've been the chief admin watching these pages. Most of that job has involved minimizing "vanispamcruft". While I appreciate the efforts of the subject in promoting the work of Ghandi, no matter how commendable those efforts may be the fact remains that he has not met our current notability standards. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There has always been and is the option to improve an article. Bhana, Chatterjee, Shimoni, Weber, and many other leading Gandhian scholars cited and quoted my books. Of course, it is possible to write a Wikipedia article on "Christian Bartolf" and the "Gandhi Information Center" in the German Wikipedia. But do not ask me after this "purgatory" experience I am going through here right now. Being an "advanced wikipedian" should not be the only condition (excuse me for removing what should not have been removed). Think again about your criteria of notability. Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Now hopefully the many additions and changes of the website will suffice. Chrbartolf 20 June 2007
 * I cleaned up the list a little. DGG 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the notability problems remain. Of the sources:
 * Six of the eleven works listed in Publications were published by the organization he directs. Self-published material is not necessarily an indicator of a reliable source.  It is an indication of WP:COI to me, especially if being used on the basis of proving one is a published expert.  (I am not saying they can't exist, just that it damages the notability argument as much if not more than its inclusion.)
 * "The Hindu" article metions Mr. Bartolf once, and states that the interview of someone else was conducted at the Gandhi Information Center. The article is about German interest in Gandhi, not Mr. Bartolf or the Gandhi Information Center.
 * The Jungewelt article requires registration and is in German; I am not commenting on that one way or the other.
 * The link that points to mkgandhi.org - it's a list of people under a page subheading of "resource persons," and contains a bio of Mr. Bartolf. The page structure has little-to-no navigation capability, and I'm not really sure what it's supposed to be - a listing of persons in India who are resources about Gandhi?  If someone can explain how this is a reliable source, and how it qualifies as a secondary source, I'd explore it further.  (However, the main page of the site does reference a link to a Time Online article about Ghandi as a Web Resource.  Does Time's notability convey to the mkgandhi site which conveys to Mr. Bartolf?)
 * The Berlin.de reference is about the Gandhi Information Center, not Mr. Bartolf. Again, it only mentions his name.  (And I wonder what it takes to be placed at Berlin.de.)
 * The european-vegetarian.org site only tells me I do not have permission to access anything on the server, 503 Error.
 * Mr. Bartolf was a participant at the Satragraya conference. Not a speaker.  No information as to what it takes to participate, or if the conference is by invitation or simply an attendance fee.  I've been to Comic-Con twice.  Does that make me a notable subject on Science Fiction?
 * To make this short, the article has been much better Wikified. I still have no further confidence about notability which meets WP:BIO.  I would still invite correction of this notion.
 * I would note separately that I am sorry that Mr. Bartolf is having a bad experience with this. I would suggest (without anticipating what end this AfD will be,) that he read WP:WWMPD?, so that he can make advance preparations if he wishes.  And to respond to other other statement, I am not an "Advanced Wikipedian", quite far from it. LaughingVulcan 00:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Federal Government has made fighting right-wing extremism a domestic policy priority, because intolerance, racism and xenophobia upset the internal balance of a democratic society. Although the overwhelming majority of people living in Germany reject right-wing and xenophobic activity, this anti-social behaviour needs to be actively confronted. In view of the variety of factors which can contribute to right-wing extremist ideas and behaviour, the Federal Government combines an active human rights policy with measures to strengthen civil society and social engagement and to encourage the integration of foreigners, as well as measures targeting right-wing extremists and their milieu. For more information (in German): Bündnis für Demokratie und Toleranz (Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance) (...)" (website of the Federal Ministry of the Interior of the German government: http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_028/nn_122730/Internet/Content/Themen/Innere__Sicherheit__allgemein/PolitischeZiele/Racism__and__xenophobia.html Chrbartolf 22 June 2007
 * ... what in the world does this have to do with the AfD? -- Kesh 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Beats me, but he also left it at Talk:Gandhi Information Center. Perhaps it's offered as something to do with Notability?  (What, I couldn't say...) LaughingVulcan 03:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got it. User:Kresspahl made this edit: [diff], stating that the BfDuT was not a government agency.  Apparently Mr. Bartolf is trying to establish a chain from the Bund website that links through to another Bund article about the BfDuT.   (The BfDuT has its own website, also.) of which Mr. Bartolf (or rather his organization) is apparently a member.  There's a link to the BfDuT website listing the Gandhi Information Center in the Bartolf article.  I can't see that the BfDuT is a government organization (just has a mention on one,) nor that the notability of BfDuT is established, let alone going to where the notability confers.  But I could be wrong about that - it's hard to evaluate notability of sites in foreign countries, let alone when they are in another language. LaughingVulcan 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like grasping at straws... ah well. -- Kesh 04:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for explanation: the "Bündnis für Demokratie und Toleranz (Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance)" was founded by the German government on 23 May 2000 (day of the German Constitution). Gandhi Information Center is a member of it, active in the field "prevention of violence". Chrbartolf 23 June 2007


 * Okay, and thank you for the explanation. I understand that you are the director of Gandhi Information Center, and that Gandhi Information Center has a bio listing at the Alliance for Democracy and Tolerance.  But if that conveys notability (not stipulating that it does,) then the notability is for the Center, and does not necessarily accrue to your biography.


 * Earlier, you had mentioned that, "Bhana, Chatterjee, Shimoni, Weber, and many other leading Gandhian scholars cited and quoted my books." If your works have indeed been cited in independent published works by Surendra Bhana, Margaret Chatterjee, Gideon Shimoni, Thomas Weber, and others, why can you not add the line into the bio:  "Mr. Bartolf's work has been cited by Surendra Bhana, Margaret Chatterjee, Gideon Shimoni, Thomas Weber, and other scholars of Gandhi."  (Replacing the  tags with appropriate tags as per WP:CITE.  From Notability (academics):  "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature." LaughingVulcan 13:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, I can and will like to do so, in case no one will accuse me of writing an "autobiography" which has been one of the reproaches so far during this "procedure". Who is authorizing me for doing this now? You know I am a newby and do not know all the regulations and rules of Wikipedia by heart. And if I am authorized to do so, will this information suffice? - Being first President and Chair member of the Gandhi Information Center (volunteer work), my biography has been strongly connected with the Center. Chrbartolf 23 June 2007


 * Now I added according to your proper suggestion: "Mr. Bartolf's work has been cited by Surendra Bhana, (ref. 1: Surendra Bhana / Goolam Vahed. The Making of a Political Reformer. Gandhi in South Africa, 1893-1914, New Delhi: Manohar Press, 2005, p. 136, footnote 74 and p. 155, footnote 31 and Bibliography p. 176) Margaret Chatterjee, (ref. 2: Margaret Chatterjee. Gandhi and the Challenge of Religious Diversity: Religious Pluralism Revisited. New Delhi: Promilla, 2005, p. 301, footnote 31)  Gideon Shimoni, (ref. 3: Gideon Shimoni. Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa. Hanover: University Press of New England, Brandeis University Press, 2003, p. 279, footnote 21)  Thomas Weber, (ref. 4: Thomas Weber. Gandhi as disciple and mentor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 76, footnote 26)  and other scholars of Gandhi and his contemporaries (ref. 5: e.g. Jeremy Adler and Richard Fardon: Orientpolitik, Value, and Civilisation: The Anthropological Thought of Franz Baermann Steiner, in: Franz Baermann Steiner, Jeremy D. Adler, Richard Fardon: Orientpolitik, Value, and Civilisation (Methodology and History in Anthropology, Volume 3), p.22, or: Mike Alfred: Johannesburg Portraits: From Lionel Phillips to Sibongile Khumalo. Johannesburg (South Africa): Jacana Media 2003, p. 128)." You find most of these quotes via "google books". Hope I will not be again accused of "being an autobiographer", for "spamming" or "vandalizing". I just do my best - does this suffice? Chrbartolf 23 June 2007


 * Keep -changed vote per references added to article about scholars who cite Mr. Bartolf in above paragraph. Subject now crosses over the notability guideline in my opinion.  Please be aware that conflict of interest is a good guideline to follow, any editor must be careful when writing about oneself.  But as far as I am concerned it reads very well now.  I am still a little uncertain about Gandhi Information Center, but I will try to reconsider it fresh. LaughingVulcan 18:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment LaughingVulcan has now closed the afd on Gandhi Information Center with a delete. I think it reasonable that one article continue--there's enough to support one article. It's not unreasonable to think that there shouldn't be two--the contents and the sources did overlap somewhat. I think that in the circumstances the reasonable think is to keep this one of the two. 'DGG 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I wasn't the closer of GIC, I was the nominator. But I agree with you FWIW.  This article has also had much cleanup and addition of sourcing as above.  Laughing Vulcan  02:59, 28 June 2007 (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.