Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dietmar Moews


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dietmar Moews

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article about a non-notable person written by the person himself. Sources used are not reliable. Blatant self-aggrandizing. The person is described in the leade of an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung of April 15, 2012 as an example of the type of kooky person drawn to the Piratenpartei in Germany. The article was written by Moews himself (via AFC, then as Kiseidep), and is nothing but a monument to vainglory and CoI-editing based on ridiculous and unsourced claims. The account Kiseidep (which is short for “Kinderseiten der Epochen”, yet another of his strange video channels) has gone to great lengths to play this game in de:WP too. Then Kiseidep was blocked in de:WP. Note the following attempted article creations by Kiseidep & Company in the German Wikipedia: In the German Wikipedia, this article has been deleted for complete lack of notability. I realize that the standards here are different. But content wise, the article cannot stand. Complete rewrite based on reliable sources by editors without CoI. Or delete. Minderbinder-de (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dietmar Moews, deleted various times, discussions from December 2005 and April 2008
 * Neue Sinnlichkeit / neue sinnlichkeit: deleted various times, see discussion from 2008 with Moews' sidekick Tomski aka Tomskiberlin, who also comments in his video channels
 * Not to speak of his edits in Springe, Alphons Silbermann and his famous institute, the de:Asz Alphons Silbermann Zentrum - Institut für europäische Massenkommunkations- und Bildungsforschung.


 * please delete because of the reasons Minderbinder listed above - I also thought about a deletion request after reading the FAZ article on Moews and remember the discussions in ther German WP. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Article from 2006 about a German artist that reads like pompous self-promoting. WP:SPIP. Given sources are mostly not verifiable. A search on Google News with "Dietmar Moews" -dietmarmoews.com -youtube.com gives a link to an article in a german newspaper from yesterday where he was described as a Crackpot with a wikipedia article . The newspaper has the second largest circulation in Germany.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for rather substantial reasons given above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Neutral It would appear to me that the article in the FAZ linked to above goes some way towards establishing notability as a crank. It is basically all about Moews and the reaction to him from people in the political party of which he's a member. Obviously, 95% of the current article should go, but perhaps a stub concentrating on his "kookyness" might be feasible. However, at this point there's only the FAZ article, whereas GNG requires multiple sources, so I am not !voting "keep" at this point. Note, hoever, that the current article claims much coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, this is all pre-Internet and difficult to verify nowadays. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2012 (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.