Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klemens Fischer


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Klemens Fischer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Foreword: I have admittedly not spent much time researching this as I stumbled across this article while busy with something else.

This article appears to be entirely written by its subject as an autobiography. The only significant contributors, and Beatrix_Becker_2015 all appear to have some connection, along with a variety of IPs that all geolocate to the same area as the subject of this article. The article itself falls fowl of a variety of BLP rules such as WP:BLPSELFPUB. A fair portion of the listed sources in the article have nothing to do with Fischer himself and seem to just be about other things in the article to fluff up the number of refs.

In summary this seems to me to be pure self-promotion (WP:AUTOBIO, WP:SELFPROMOTE), barely more than a resume, and doesn't pass various notability requirements. The corresponding German wikipedia article has also been written by the same accounts listed above. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a conflict of interest can do better. I can't read German, so I'm not equipped to determine whether he has enough coverage in reliable sources to clear WP:GNG — but this is written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, is based entirely on primary sources (his own staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers, etc.) rather than reliable ones, and is stating nothing about him that counts as "inherently" notable enough to make it necessary to keep an article that's written and sourced this badly. And the German article, as written, isn't any better — it's following exactly the same format (the English one is literally a straight translation of it, in fact) and citing exactly the same primary sources, and should rightly be deleted on DE too. If a German speaker can do better, be my guest. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ping User:Gerda Arendt. She speaks German and may be able to help form an opinion.4meter4 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: regardless on who wrote this, he is a professor (Honorarprofessor) in Cologne and a politician for the European Union. The article has too much detail for my taste, and seems a not too elegant translation, with bare urls for refs, but I see no convincing reason to delete. Improve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * does being a professor and being a low-level politician inherently mean notability? Also looking at the official website, his claim to being the Head of Department at the Permanent Representation of Austria to the European Union seems blatantly false based on and based on this list he seems to be one of hundreds of people doing the same job, I'm not convinced they're all notable. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't automatically keep every article just because somebody uses the word "improve" in the AFD discussion — we wouldn't even be able to delete outright hoaxes anymore if all you had to do to save an article is speculate that better sources might be out there somewhere than anybody has actually found yet. Rather, it has to be shown that better sources definitively exist to improve it with before a poorly sourced article can get kept. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Late reply: I didn't even say "keep". I also didn't argue for having him as professor, but a politician who is also a professor. In this, I read "head of a department, which is not the same as "head ofthe department. Looking further: this even says which department, "Länder and Regional Affairs". - Senior Research Fellow in Cologne. - 2018 when Austria had the EU presidency - I was busy, and still have many more urgent things to catch up. - (signature much later, sorry) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 21:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep = he;s an ambassador from Austria to EU. Normal editing can remove the cruft. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure promotional article. If he's notable, we can WP:TNT and recreate, but none of the sources pass WP:GNG. Not convinced on the WP:NPROF, or that being an honorary professor would convey notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice towards recreation in the future if an editor can prove notability and write in a non-promotionial manner, but the current sources don't demonstrate that WP:GNG is passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2019 (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.