Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunther Holtorf


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 00:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Gunther Holtorf

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The epitome of a WP:BLP1E, subject has received coverage for...driving a car a lot. Whee... Tarc (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong ehhhhhhhhh... leaning toward weak delete . I'm open to the possibility that someone (else) could find continued coverage to demonstrate that he really did drive a whole hell of a lot enough that it might be worthwhile to go on and cover him.  As it is (and has been), one might as well just read that BBC article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well dang, that actually happened. Strong ehhh leaning toward Weak keep.  26 years in 179 countries isn't quite one event.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable per BLP1E. BMK (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- as above, there's only 2-3 sources about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that is just simply untrue!!! There are two footnotes showing (including the BBC). Now add to that THIS from DeutschWelde (an ultra-big source) and THIS from the Daily Mail, which isn't "reliable" but does go to demonstrate public interest in the topic, and THIS from The Local (German news in English) and THIS from Buisness Inquirer and THIS from The Express and THIS from The Jakarta Post (2001) and probably scores more English articles, not to mention the first German-language source and this is miles over the GNG bar. We are left with (a) those who misinterpret 1E, calling a 20+ year journey "one event" and (b) those who cloak IDONTLIKEIT in other terms. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete a BLP1E. Sounds like it was fun though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear BLP1E. GiantSnowman 12:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E. The only reason the event is being plugged here is that Mercedes-Benz is using Holtorf and his car in their marketing, as evidenced by 's attempt to get a big blurb about Holtorf and his car into Mercedes-Benz G-Class. Thomas.W talk 14:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Thomas.W talk 10:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article is deleted I also suggest SALTing the article title to prevent recreation, because MMAR isn't going to give up, even if he gets indefinitely blocked. Thomas.W talk 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One might argue that the only reason this is being attacked is because the exploits of the individual are being made a part of a marketing campaign after the fact. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep after the total rewrite of the article. But it's only a weak keep since all of the sources seem to be based on either Holtorf's and his team's own "official" web site or an interview with Holtorf in Spiegel Online, meaning that there's really only two sources, none of which is independent of the subject. Thomas.W talk 10:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow Delete- Classic example of BLP1E. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per fixes made, I'm not happy with half of the article being removed and then nominated but meh shit happens - It's saturday and so can't be arsed to argue . – Davey 2010 Talk 19:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Put away your snow shovels, there is sufficient sourcing out there to support a GNG pass and calling a 26-year journey "one event" stretches credulity. "One event" is winning the lottery or finding a giant diamond. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would have been a bigger thing if it had been a single 26-year journey, but it wasn't, it was split into several parts with years between each part of the trip. So the 26 years is the time from the start of the first of several legs until the end of the final leg of the trip. Thomas.W talk 15:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are saying it is a series of multiple events then??? Can't have it both ways... We are not here to judge the merits of this or that subject, only whether or not that subject meets our notability requirements. This one clearly does, whether it is framed as a biography or (see below) as an article on the journey... Carrite (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Alternatively, if the individual is held non-notable according to BLP1E, then an article on the journey certainly, easily, massively passes GNG based on the existence of multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability dedicated substantially to the event. That would be simply a matter of retitling and rewriting. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:1E. Originally, I would have !voted for keep because of the coverage meeting WP:GNG, but the deletes above naming 1E brought me back to reality.  It does seem the event is notable, more-so than the 1E individual the article is about.  An article on the event and the book is the likely alternate solution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This why i hate this policy in what world is 26 years and 179 countries "one event", a slippery slope indeed. GuzzyG (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't think re-naming the article to be about the trip is a viable solution, especially when there were so many of them, and there would be no decent way to title it. I don't currently have an opinion strong enough to !vote on this AfD (although if I did, given the coverage, I'd probably !vote keep), but Moonriddengirl seems to be making a good case of it now, with reliable sourcing and encyclopedic writing. If we can stay focussed on the significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and keep out the clueless edits/editors, I think a decent article of sufficient notability could be had here. Softlavender (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I did some work on this because sometimes the only way I can tell if something meet WP:GNG is if I can find sources myself. I did, and a bit more than I used. There's a difference between "1E" and a voyage of decades that has received reliable coverage demonstrably over at least 2 years. There was some misinformation in the article as I found out - the guy wasn't famous in the 1980s and indeed says he deliberately avoided publicity, for instance, and he certainly didn't travel nonstop with only occasional restbreaks (according to the BBC) - but reliable sources have talked about what he's done, in depth, and who he is. Two different sources, one English and one German, indicate that he is going to be covered by Guinness, but even if he's not there's deep coverage on this man that spans several years. I don't think there's a better name than his own (especially since this is the name under which his maps have been published), but have no objections to a move and repurposing of the article if somebody wants to focus instead on the feat. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Moonriddengirl's excellent re-factoring, improvement, and citing of the article. Definitely meets WP:GNG. Softlavender (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep new short version. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a flood warning forecast, due to rapidly melting snow. Just a shameful reception given by our welcoming party to a new, good-faith editor, who simply needed some helpful guidance. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "shamefully received" "new good faith editor who simply needed some helpful guidance" is currently blocked for a month, with talk page use revoked, for repeated personal attacks and general battle-ground behaviour. With massive support for a long block on WP:ANI after a complaint that backfired and resulted in a boomerang for him. This isn't about that editor though, but about the article. Thomas.W talk 19:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I confess Wbm does have a point, though. MMAR was a good-faith editor, and lacked instruction on how to handle his frustration that his time-consuming efforts were being massively cut, with edit summaries that seemed rude to him (and probably would have to any brand-new editor). The article version he wrote was not a bad one, quite the contrary (I just now took the time to read it), and he had placed his citations at the bottom of the article. (It was however long and wordy, and, for someone unfamiliar with the story, unduly so.) Unfortunately, his social skills were almost non-existent, and he resorted to edit-warring, rage, sarcasm, and insult instead of polite inquiry or whatever would have advanced his purpose. And then he couldn't seem to get out of that mode, but rather escalated it, and that of course made everyone extremely impatient with him. Let's just say it was unfortunate all around. Whether he could have been a productive editor if immediately instructed in WP article-talk-page protocol is unknown -- it's hard to defend your case when you're new and the cards are stacked against you, and it's hard for someone with the fuse of a teenage boy to react calmly and civilly when provoked. Softlavender (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite and Moonriddengirl. We should not allow the terrible behavior of the guy who pushed the article to influence us to delete an article on a notable topic. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per the rationale's of Carrite and Moonriddengirl. A WP:BASIC pass, and a series of separate events over the course of time is not a single event. North America1000 19:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Barbara Toy was doing this sort of journey 50 years ago so this chap is not that remarkable but, even so, it's quite clearly not a BLP1E case as there isn't an event and there's no separate article for this non-existent event. Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Based on its current referencing, this article passes the General Notability Guideline. It is not a WP:BLP1E; Gunther Holtorf also is claimed (in the BBC News article) to have made the first maps of the Jakarta metropolitan area.   Note that a list books by one "Gunther W. Holtorf", who probably is the subject of this article, can be seen here.  These are a street map of Jakarta in  various versions, including one that is 9th edition and 176 pages, and a book about Hong Kong, in  German,  with translations into English and what may be Japanese.  Cardamon (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Carrite. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and restore the longer version in the history (merging in more recent improvements) with a bit of cleanup. This is a great article and it's evident that more sourcing is available.  And a 26 year roadtrip is a 1-event?  Please tell me you're kidding. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject looks notable to me, considering the new sources that have been added. If really necessary, the article can be moved to a different title to avoid the BLP1E issue. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. passes WP:GNG by a longshot, can't cite WP:EVENT as no viable event alternative unless people are seriously suggesting we call this Gunther Holtorf's round the world trip. GuzzyG (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have enough depth of coverage from multiple sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - article has been improved by others and now meets WP:GNG via citations to Der Spiegel, BBC News and The Jakarta Post among others (though I would really, really, appreciate it people didn't cite the Daily Mail before I've had breakfast) . I appreciate there's been some rough and tumble over this but ultimately it has the potential to be improved further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - as written, meets WP:GNG JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and Close The excellent editorial improvements to the article cancels whatever doubts may have previously existed about the subject's notability. Although a couple of days remain on the discussion, I think it would not be a problem to close this AfD at this point. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:09, 28 April 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.