Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Mausert


 * 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. The WP:BLP1E argument made in the nomination has been refuted, and all other delete comments were "per nom." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Mausert

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable as a lawyer. There's no significant coverage in idependent reliable sources to establish notability. The only coverage he gets is related to the "wearing pin in the court" accident. Gaura79 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:BIO. There are a lot of autobiographies like these in Wikipedia that need to be cleaned up. THF (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep he is notable. (User) Mb (Talk) 22:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss how this subject is notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I can see a large number of good published sources (using above links) and he is a well known Vaishnava in the yoga circles as well. I think the nominator did not do WP:BEFORE or did not even consider applying or  tags first which would have been sufficient to attract attention of other editors who can include numerous published sources to the story. --(User) Mb (Talk) 11:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet there are no reliable sources, independent of the subject, that attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep -- besides the numerous sources mentioned in the article, including NYT, other sources include.
 * |work=news.iskcon.org |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011}}
 * |work=harekrsna.com |year=2006 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011}}
 * |work=the.honoluluadvertiser.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011}}
 * |work=kayakanglermag.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011}}
 * |work=icsahome.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011}}
 * Many of these are good or independent sources provide personal information so the ONEEVENT nominators claim is not correct, he is covered and there is not other rationale for deletion, thanks Wikid as&#169; 17:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject? What is he notable for, and how does he meet WP:BIO? While the person does exist, I do not feel that he meets the requirements for notability. Though this is NOT a Strong delete scenerio; I still feel that the article is more of an advertisement. I am open to changing my opinion, but as it stands, I do not see the evidence required to maintain the article for a BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Requirement of WP:BIO needs to be met if the general notability requirements are not met and there is no consensus on inclusion based on those. You were wrong in assuming that nominator suggested that subject is not covered by reliable sources. He claimed that he is notable/ covered only for one event (which is the flag incident references). However there are a number of other sources of other events (eg his Hare Krsna brother who was killed and he is searching for his killer, for being Hare Krishna candidate to the post of Family Court Judge, for teaching yoga and vegeterianism and more which makes him notable), so the coverage he gets is in other topical sources, and it is significant, not only about 'one event' (pin) it certainly is "significant coverage in idependent reliable sources". Thus 'general notability' requirements are satisfied (not WP:BIO which are over and above that). I do agree that article needs to be rewritten to read less of a resume style, at least it should be shorten and made into a less of an ad, ideally not an advert all together, if neutral sources are given priority. Wikid as&#169; 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject? What is he notable for, and how does he meet WP:BIO? While the person does exist, I do not feel that he meets the requirements for notability. Though this is NOT a Strong delete scenerio; I still feel that the article is more of an advertisement. I am open to changing my opinion, but as it stands, I do not see the evidence required to maintain the article for a BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Requirement of WP:BIO needs to be met if the general notability requirements are not met and there is no consensus on inclusion based on those. You were wrong in assuming that nominator suggested that subject is not covered by reliable sources. He claimed that he is notable/ covered only for one event (which is the flag incident references). However there are a number of other sources of other events (eg his Hare Krsna brother who was killed and he is searching for his killer, for being Hare Krishna candidate to the post of Family Court Judge, for teaching yoga and vegeterianism and more which makes him notable), so the coverage he gets is in other topical sources, and it is significant, not only about 'one event' (pin) it certainly is "significant coverage in idependent reliable sources". Thus 'general notability' requirements are satisfied (not WP:BIO which are over and above that). I do agree that article needs to be rewritten to read less of a resume style, at least it should be shorten and made into a less of an ad, ideally not an advert all together, if neutral sources are given priority. Wikid as&#169; 02:46, 9 February 2011 (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.