Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Gänshirt


 * 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. Discounting the WP:SPA input, there is unanimous and broad consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Christian Gänshirt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article came to my attention through this odd photo caption. I'm not 100% sure about the subject's notability but the article was created by a single-purpose account. Note also the vast number of redirects. Subject is an associate professor in China and appears to be an academic of pretty average notability. Does not obviously meet the criteria at Notability (academics). Citobun (talk) 03:09, 9 Novaember 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Even though it might be a bit unusual for a German academic to hold such a position at a Chinese university, I agree this academic rank doesn't justify notability. However the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a Creative Professional WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is true for his book Tools for Ideas, which has been reviewed, discussed, cited, translated to English and Chinese, and has been used in university education in quite a few counties. As an architect, the subject also "played a major role in co-creating" much-published architectural works in his role as a project architect in the architecture office of Álvaro Siza. 街路道 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - This user is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation and may have COI in this case. Citobun (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (continued) Here are a few numbers to support the argument I made above: Worldcat lists for [| Gänshirt, Christian]: "19 works in 51 publications in 4 languages and 742 library holdings". For his book Tools for Ideas [| Worldcat lists 452 library holdings], plus 95 [|95 library holdings for the German edition]. This adds up to 547 library holdings, which for a book in the humanities should be more than enough to demonstrate its significance. 街路道 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (continued) Here some more information to support the second argument I made above. In his time as a project architect in the architecture office of Álvaro Siza, the subject was in charge of a large factory building for Vitra/Vitrashop, which has been published and reviewed in quite a few publications. The building was also one of the core topics of a doctoral dissertation published in 2006. 街路道 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (continued) Two more numbers to support the first argument I made above: For the subject’s book “Tools for Ideas”, | Google Scholar lists 38 works referencing the English edition, plus 13 referencing the German edition “Werkzeuge für Ideen”, adding up to 51 references. Again, for a book in the humanities should be more than enough to demonstrate its significance.街路道 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to administrator - all four "keep" votes above come from the same single-purpose account that has done nothing aside from comment on this discussion . I do not believe the subject meets the notability criteria at WP:CREATIVE. The idea that Tools for Ideas is a well-known work is simply not true. Google results are extremely sparse. It should also be noted that the Tools for Ideas page was created by another single-purpose account and is promotional in tone. Lastly, that the subject worked as a project architect and contributed to major projects does not establish notability through WP:CREATIVE - in any architecture firm there are many project architects that have a hand in many major works, yet few project architects have actually received the depth of coverage in secondary sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. This subject also has not. The numerous single-purpose accounts and promotional WP:ARTSPAM pages surrounding him smells of a case of using Wikipedia for advertising, contrary to our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. Ganshirt himself made a few fledgling edits to Wikipedia mere days before Tools for Ideas was created by the SPA. I suspect a case of of self-promotion through a web of sockpuppets. Here is a list of SPAs (or near-SPAs) surrounding the subject that may be socks:
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Another note - I have opened a sockpuppet investigation on this matter. Citobun (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - I'm sorry I repeated the "Keep", I didn't think of this as a voting process. Please check "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google and see how many results come up. Please verify the data and references provided above to see if they justify notability or not. I assumed WP:CREATIVE is about the work, not the person. 街路道 (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have struck the repeated keep !votes above. Only one is allowed, however users can post unlimited comments. North America1000 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * References

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, we are such a network. For someone who is familiar with the way Wikipedia works this should be easy to see (and is intended to be), simply have a look at the lists of edits/contributions. All we did is provide information; all information provided conforms with Wikipedia standards, is verifiable and properly referenced. We never got involved in editorial conflicts or any discussions (except this one). 街路道 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The policies are clear. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The use of sockpuppets for inappropriate reasons, i.e. avoiding scrutiny or contributing to the same page with multiple accounts (as you have), is prohibited. Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged and paid editing without COI disclosure is prohibited under the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. You never got in editorial conflicts because you obfuscated the promotional nature of your editing by using numerous sockpuppets to create the illusion of a diverse body of editors all working on these articles. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note regarding the first argument given above: Since it's existing, the Wikipedia page on Tools for Ideas has usually had over one thousand | visitors per month, this could be regarded another indicator that the book is not that unimportant. Until now, no one had any complaints about that page. 街路道 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia pageviews are not an indication of notability. But since you pointed it out, the fact that the pageviews are high is merely a testament to the fact that you used your sockpuppets to Wikilink to this article on hundreds of related articles on Wikipedia, i.e. by inserting it into the Design template. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question, regarding the second argument given above: If architects spend years of their work life in a leading role (like project architect in this example) working on the making of an important building, why should this not be considered “Co-creation” in terms of WP:CREATIVE? What would then be the meaning of this term? 街路道 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Every large architecture firm has numerous directors, yet rarely do these people have sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. At the same firms there are countless more project architects who have a hand in major works, but have not received major coverage, in-depth discussion and similarly do not meet notability criteria. If Ganshirt played a leading role in designing the Sydney Opera House then he might meet the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. But forgive me if I am a little doubtful that Tools for Ideas has made a major impact, given that the article was written by you and your sockpuppets, that you have a clear conflict of interest, are doing this for promotional purposes, and that I have never head of this book and cannot find indepth coverage on Google. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and you have abused multiple accounts – just stop. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, but Siza has never run a large architecture firm, at the time there were not more than 25 people working in his office, and it did't have any "directors" besides himself, let alone "countless more project architects". The question here is what co-creation means in terms of WP:CREATIVE, Citobun did not respond to that. As I said above, please check "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google and Google Scholar and see how many results come up. "I have never heard of this book" is not a particularly strong argument. Anyway, since GoogleBooks made the book available online for free, sales numbers dropped to almost zero, so there in not much of a point in promoting it. Finally, we only used one and the same signature in this whole discussion, because we do not want to confuse anybody. 街路道 (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ganshirt does not meet the WP:BASIC criteria at Notability (people). He has not received a sufficient depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources. As that page states, meeting one or more "additional criteria" does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Your references do not demonstrate a depth and breadth of coverage nor a focus on Ganshirt - every architecture firm has these sorts of portfolio publications done up by architectural publishers that detail their most significant work over the years. This does not instil notability to every single project architect. Lastly I feel that if Ganshirt and his work is so notable then someone will independently make a Wikipedia article of their own accord. The articles you have created are tainted by the simple fact that you have abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes, violating a core policy of Wikipedia: that of NPOV. You know that and that's why you have so many sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. This sort of manipulative behavior harms the credibility of the encyclopedia. It is embarrassing to the subject of the COI edits. It wastes the time of volunteer editors (i.e. myself and any admins who have to pore through this mess). Just shameful – I have literally wasted hours researching your 11 sockpuppet accounts and corresponding with you here when I could be making meaningful contributions elsewhere. Wikipedia is not for advertisement and promotion, there are other websites for that that I advise you to try instead. Citobun (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note to admins - I think that by continuously commenting, and creating a new bullet point for every single comment, the above sockpuppet is really confusing this discussion and dissuading other people from contributing. The issue here is pretty cut-and-dry (i.e. someone is abusing multiple accounts to promote a non-notable subject and sell their book) and yet passers-by are led to believe this is a highly controversial AfD by virtue of the EIGHT separate comments the sockpuppet has left. Citobun (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a ridiculous case of Self promotion. Using Citespam and Refspam for Bookspamming through a zoo of socks. Has ever anyone written one substantial sentence in the articles about the subject or its book that is not part of his (meat) puppet zoo? I have deleted the link to his book from the template Design. -- Ben Ben (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also deleted the link to his book from the template Visualization where it was set by one of the socks. -- Ben Ben (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The question should not be who provided the information, but if the information provided is correct or not. Tools for Ideas obviously meets the Wikipedia standards for notability, this is not the topic of this discussion. 街路道 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do I have the constant feeling of listening to a con artist while reading your arguments? Can you answer me that? -- Ben Ben (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to administrators - It was certainly our mistake to use alternate accounts to provide information, and we totally understand your difficulties in trusting that information now. Being aware of that, we took great care to support all information with the necessary references for independent verification. Is there anything else we could do about that? In the discussion above we basically provided two arguments defending the notability of the subject as a Creative Professional WP:CREATIVE. The first argument, which is probably the stronger one, is his book Tools for Ideas. Please verify the data provided above (more than 500 library holdings listed in Worldcat, 50 citations in Google Scholar, quite a few results for "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google) to make your decision. You might also have a look at the footnotes of that page to find authors commenting on or discussing concepts of the book in some depth (see footnotes 18-22 for reviews in German, footnote 21 for one translated into English). The second argument touches on the more difficult question if the work of a project architect in a small, but important architecture office could be acknowledged as "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" in terms of WP:CREATIVE. We are not sure about the standards Wikipedia applies in such a case. Should you decide to relist this AfD debate again, please provide some guidance on how to continue. 街路道 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to yourself in the plural form, it is misleading and manipulative. Secondly I already answered all your queries above. If a subject is genuinely notable then someone will eventually independently create an article for them. You don't need to do it yourself. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn. Citobun (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any independent significant coverage about this person. An average professor. Every professor writes textbooks to make extra money. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete/userfy. (I was asked to comment here). I'll ping User:Randykitty for a 2nd opinion regarding WP:PROF, but his research seems not to meet the requirements. As for notability for being a writer, I am not sure if Tools for Ideas is notable at all: I see no reviews in Google Scholar. There are few on the web, primarily in German, and I am not sure those are sufficiently reliable sources to support the notability of the book. And even if the book is notable, I don't think it's significant enough for his notability as a writer. PS. I'd advise the creator(s) to stop abusing Wikipedia for promotion, but instead, ask for this and related pages to be userfied (maybe in few years the subject will gain proper notability). The article is well written, but encyclopedias are not places to advertise oneself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note: This user has been asked by Citobun (talk) to provide support for his point of view, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus 街路道 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask him to support my POV. I messaged a single user, whom I have not interacted with before, for a third opinion because I feared that this AfD would get closed with no consensus. My message was totally neutral. Review WP:CANVASSING - what I did, messaging one user for a third opinion, does not quality as canvassing. Meanwhile you are continually trying to manipulate this discussion despite your WP:COI. Thankfully we have consensus now (five delete vs. one keep from an SPA COI pseudo-Chinese sockpuppet) so happily this waste of time should not be drawn out much longer. Citobun (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this is not a voting process, this debate is about the question if the arguments presented are valid or not. Simply ignoring them does'nt make them less valid. Your request was not neutral at all, it was eloquently conveying your point of view. I'd be very grateful if you could stop trying to manipulate this discussion by telling other users they should stop contributing to it. I will defend my point of view as long as it is necessary. 街路道 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. GScholar indicates just a handful of citations. Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. As for the book, that article reads like an advert and somebody should go through it carefully to see whether the references actually support what is being claimed (the article looks suspiciously like a work created for hire: it's expertly written and formatted perfectly, and this by an editor with just a handful of edits...) I checked one reference for the book being used in a university course and it was just included in a long "further reading" list, which is trivial. We see the same thing here: the rather mediocre claim to fame ("site manager", really?) that "He worked as a site manager in a BAL team taking care of the transformation of the Former Reichsbank building into the headquarters of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, a project overseen by Hans Kollhoff & Helga Timmermann." is supported by a link to the homepage of BAL, which does not mention Gänshirt. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note: This user has been pinged by the previous user who had been asked by Citobun (talk) to provide support for his point of view, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus 街路道 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment That is only partially correct. Yes, I was pinged by Piotrus, no I was not asked to give support for a particular point of view. Piotrus regularly pings me to give my opinion in cases where I have expertise that may be useful. Even if I had been asked to support a particular POV, I always make up my own mind and Piotrus certainly knows that (see here for an example where I don't give the answer that he may have hoped for). Contrary to what 街路道 suggests, no canvassing has been going on here, as it is perfectly reasonable to ping editors who may have specialized knowledge. --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, (although this is not necessarily relevant for afds) I am always a little uncomfortable with non-english subjects who do not have an article in their country's wikipedia (I usually check to see if they have any useable references) ie. Gänshirt does not have an article in the German wikipedia . Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable in each and every respect.
 * He is not even a professor; he is associate professor.
 * His university profile says not a mum about his achievenemts ("the International Journal of Architectural Theory[www.cloud-cuckoo.net] " - OHRLLY?).
 * "He is mostly known for his writings on design theory, contemporary architecture and urbanism.[3]" - not supported by ref cited.
 * "he proposes the concept of the design cycle as a recurrent time pattern" - what a crock of shit! This is known for at least a century
 * And so on... The article is a hopeless WP:SYNTH of puffery scrapped off the bottom of a barrel. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reminder: Don't feed trolls. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:03, 12 December 2015 (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.