Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl


 * 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. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO, a number of the sources don't even mention him, and the reliable second party sources that do mention him give fairly trivial mentions. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable at all, lacking neutral sources, article contains pov material. Namsos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here is the German version of the article (translated with Google translation) and he does seem notable -- there are far more citations. Renee (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently, this guy was a crackpot denying the Armenian genocide and wanting to restore the Habsburg monarchy. Of course, even crackpots can be notable if their ideas gather enough attention in mainstream media. Renee draws attention above to the article on this person in the German Wikipedia. It is instructive to read the talk page of the German article, too. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete German article is irrelevant. --Namsos (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Above comment suggests possible bad faith on the part of the nominator. POV is a reason for cleanup, not deletion; the de.wikipedia article is absolutely relevant, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad faith? this is English Wikipedia what happens in German is not my concern since I do not read or write in it. The editor is on that article too. --Namsos (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The German article has more sources, which was noted here by User:Reneeholle before your above response. Lack of neutral sources was part of your nomination rationale.  Deletion is a last resort for things that may not otherwise be saved.  By ignoring an answer to your objection, it appears that deletion, (perhaps because genocide denial is a distasteful topic, but that's my perspective and may not be yours) rather than the improvement of wikipedia, may be your goal. Regardless, I'm convinced the person is notable and the article should be kept, and that decision was based on the evidence presented, not your statement. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. It seems that his notability rests on his status as a genocide denier and a monarchist crank, rather than anything in WP:PROF, and therefore that it should be determined by the existence of reliable secondary sources about him per WP:BIO. A Google news search found a little, but not enough to really convince me, and the recently-added Spiegel article only mentions him trivially. At the very least, the lede of the article should highlight more prominently his non-mainstream views. I notice that unsourced claims in the article of being a historian and a professor at the University of Vienna have been the subject of some edit warring recently; the article still calls him a professor, but without context, and that should probably also be removed unless it can be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless he can be proven significant as a Armenian Genocide denier and conspiracy theorist, he is irrelevant. As far as I know, no other English wikipedia articles reference him. The Myotis (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Any web search yields thousands of hits. Erich Feigl has produced over 60 documentaries and won numerous awards.  A lot less prominent personalities have found their places on these pages.  I am surpised this nomination even came this far.  It looks like an abuse of the system by a user who has little good faith.  --Murat (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that less prominent people have an article is not an argument here, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there a reason why none of these documentaries is listed at the Internet Movie Database? Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One is that I could see, where he's credited as an assistant director, but I'm unsure how comprehensive IMDB's coverage is of non-English language documentaries. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP This article passes WP:BIO. It seems to be a very encyclopedic article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per David Eppstein. Fails WP:PROF, and also fails WP:BIO as there is no evidence that he has been the subject of extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteNot notable enough. Can't have an article for every single Genocide denier. Even people who are very familiar with the topic have never heard of him.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of refs, and an oldish article on the German wikipedia which has much stricter notability requirements. As such I can only view calls to delete this as a non-english bias --T-rex 03:24, 4 July 2008 (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.