Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Beurmann


 * 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Emil Beurmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Warnings up here for 7 years with no sourcing. I looked around a bit on google and really found only other wiki's, blogs or self published works. If there are good sources that we can add to this, great! But if not, seven years is enough time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The German Wikipedia page is much more extensive than our one-line stub. EdChem (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah but we couldn't use that as a source and if we don't speak German we can't tell what it says. The sources don't really allow me to check either. English Google didn't tell me anything and this article shouldn't have been allowed to exist with no sources. I'm glad we found some sources but is everyone in the sikart source notable? Blofeld's source is really just a listing, not a bio, so we need to know that everyone in that book is 100% notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone can make this at least stub-worthy with sources to show notability I'll withdraw this AfD. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is striking that more than ten people have contributed to the entry, but only one of them has added a (half) line of content.  There seems to be an awful lot of fiddling round the edges, but a reluctance to add something useful.   Are wiki contributors so overwhelmingly shy?   Or is it just less trouble to fiddle round the edges?


 * As fas as the entry is concerned, there's an apparently usable entry in German wiki.  It's not wonderful, but it's a lot better than what passes on English wiki as a "stub".   I suspect someone attempting a translation from the German might have baulked at the idea that our man's father was a "Tapezierer" which to me has something to do with hanging wall-paper, but back in the nineteenth century probably meant something a bit different.    Does anyone have any better ideas?


 * I've dug out an on-line potted biography and will happily adapt a few lines aided by German wiki.  Maybe someone else would care to do a few more?   The list of the guy's works alone indicates that he "deserves" a wiki entry.


 * Happy days Charles01 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if the language was a barrier? I'd have added something if I could find anything in English... but there really wasn't any. So I questioned if this dude was even notable after 7 years of zero sources. It looks like he accomplished much of his notability in the city of Basel also, so that helps out at the Basel article also. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Partly language, yes obviously.  But you really can't rule out sources simply because they fail to use GOD'S OWN LANGUAGE.   The Anglosphere has a long standing propensity to disappear up it's own linguistic monoculture, but you have to hope that wikipedia's eye watering stated ambitions for its own scope should trump (sorry...) at least the worst of of that.   My other thought:   with this guy - as with a lot of artists and writers - when you google, a lot of the online sources are from people trying to sell the art, which for those of us inherently mistrustful of salesmen is not the most inspiring of sources.  Anyhow, I find the Basler University Library confers a bit more comfort than an art dealer's guff.   I hope others agree.   Otherwise, yes he's clearly of more direct interest if you live (or have lived) in Basel than if you don't (or haven't):  I did try to restrict my "google hits" by including "Basel" alongside his name on the Google box.   Maybe if I'd included Basle instead I'd have got a whole lot more in French or English.  It's only in the last few decades that English language sources have switched (?back) from calling the city Basle to Basel, I think.  Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep. Covered in SIKART, the Swiss biographical dictionary of artists, at a level of detail ("Bearbeitungstiefe") of 2 out of 5, which roughly corresponds to their assessment of notability. So that's not much. But together with the cited Basler Literaturarchiv entry that's probably enough material for borderline notability.  Sandstein   09:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked a bit and there seems to be a 10-page article about his life in a Basel historical journal: Steuri, Eduard. E. Beurmann, der Dichtermaler, 1862-1951. (Basler Jahrbuch 1952, S. 156 -165. Portr.), assuming that Portr. refers to Porträt, or "portrait", the German term used for long biographical articles. Then there are 13 works listed as literature about him in SIKART, mostly exposition catalogues, but also works that seem to be biographical or descriptive judging from the titles. According to de:, he also has an entry in de:Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, a German biographical dictionary of artists, and in a book about personalities from Basel. Overall we do seem to have quite enough material for an article, it's just that it's mostly in pre-Internet Swiss and German books. Changing opinion to "keep".  Sandstein   18:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - I opened this discussion and am satisfied as to the worthiness of keeping this article. Could an administrator such as please close it as keep? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I may not close a discussion in which I offered an opinion, but another admin will come along eventually to close it.  Sandstein   18:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, don't be so Swiss about things. The nominator has withdrawn and nobody else has called for deletion, so of course you can close this, whatever the rules might say. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 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.