Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregor Brand

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Gregor Brand.

Further comments can be made in a new section below.

The result of the debate was to move the page to User:GregorBrand.


 * vanity page, self-advertising by same internet persona. Only 63 hits on Google, 1000 if you include German pages.  He added a page about an ancestor of his, Siegfried Alkan, who only gets 3 google hits from Brand's own free web-hosting pages, so it poses verification problems.  Advert also includes link to a genealogy site claiming he's related to another historical person.  User has also linked his article into a variety of list articles over the last few days from a variety of IP addresses: User:193.159.25.80 User:212.185.253.71 User:193.159.25.22 User:62.227.254.4 User:62.158.143.175 and more for the other article.  Daniel Quinlan 01:13, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * Since I'm no expert on .de poetry, I hesitated. But adding himself to 1957 makes my decision much easier. Is "Brand" German for Bradford? Delete. orthogonal 12:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself: Why should a poet who is listed in more than 10 national and international literature lexica or biographical works (See the page: www.angelfire.com/art/gregorbrand/Biographie.html)have no entry in Wikipedia? I don´t see this as a case of vanity. GregorBrand
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but your user name isn't an homage to Brand, is it? You're actually the person in question. So I guess you are literally "speaking for yourself". Bad form, old boy. And very clearly vanity. If you're actually of note, someday someone who isn't you will come along and note you. Let us hope for the arrival of that happy day, but not anticipate it. orthogonal 21:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for self-agrandizement. Kingturtle 18:13, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Orthogonal admits that he is no expert on German poetry. Is Wikipedia a place for judging - in an arrogant tone - without expertise and knowledge? And what have the two, three non-exaggerating, but simply and decently informing sentences of the incriminated entries to do with self-agrandizement? If a writer writes that he is a writer, this is nothing else but a pure fact.  GregorBrand
 * Siegfried Alkan was a published composer in his time. It can be proven with paper evidence - if someone really doubts his existence. His life and work came - similar to many other cases of Jewish artists in Nazi Germany - through a lot of circumstances in the danger of being forgotten. In which way does it harm Wikipedia if such a musician has an entry here? GregorBrand
 * Can you provide verifiable evidence (that does not rely on web pages authored by you) of Alkan's works? If you can, I have no objection in principle to retaining the page. In the absence of such evidence, I must assume Alkan is not of significant note, and therefore inappropriate as an article here. orthogonal 02:46, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Why not transfer this to User:Gregor Brand?? Muriel Victoria 13:00, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * If I would have known that there is so much discussion about such short and modest entries I wouldn´t have edited those pages. If it is really a problem for someone here to have an entry in Wikipedia about a contemporary, more than tenfold lexical listed German poet, then delete and be happy. I have no problem with it. Instead I have a problem with a rather absurd discussion that hadn´t started if not I, but for example a friend of mine had edited the pages. Or, even simplier, that hadn´t started if I had used a different Username. When I stepped into Wikipedia I thought - probably too naive - that it is important WHAT is edited and not WHO is the editor.GregorBrand

New edits should appear only below this line