Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Rummel


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Martin Rummel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Firstly, it is questioned whether Martin is notable enough for his own wikipedia page. There are many, many (millions of) artists and musicians who have performed just as widely and released as many recordings who do not have a page. Secondly, there are not enough sources for most of the biographical information. In fact, I would go so far to say that most of the article is written by Martin Rummel himself. The information is incredibly detailed and a lot of it, such as Martin's appointment as Head of School, just a few weeks ago, is very recent, which you would not expect on a biography of a person of his relatively limited notability. Most of the sources are for the discography at the end, but many of these are not cited. Lastly, the style is very questionable. Compare the article with Martin's biography on the University of Auckland website: http://www.creative.auckland.ac.nz/people/profile/m-rummel, which is written in a very similar, boastful style and tone. Again, it seems clear that the article was written by Martin. The specificity of information for a relatively un-famous musician, the lack of sources to support this detailed information, and the narrative-style of writing point to the article being written by Martin himself. It begins like this and continues throughout: "The son of Peter Rummel, professor of law, grew up in Linz, where he went to primary school..." In summary, I believe this article fails on the grounds of: notability; lack of sources; and style. Mii 97531 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to easily pass the WP:GNG guideline - an international recognised cellist with multiple coverage in a wide range of published media. The article has a lot of edits from unidentified sources so could have some WP:coi content. Needs better referencing, and a tidy up. Nothing that would make it into the delete category though. NealeFamily (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best as still questionable, searches found a few links but simply not enough, and the current article is not satisfying the current notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep First, I would like to point out that I find it rather strange, that user's User:Mii 97531 only edit on this Wiki is the demand for deleting this article. To me this makes the impression the user has some personal problems with Martin Rummel, whatever they might be. It seems rather unlikely that someone who wishes to improve Wikipedia's quality would pick this article first. As the first author of this article on the German and English Wikipedia I am convinced Mr. Rummel is more than important enough to be mentioned on both sites, especially considering his CV. User:NealeFamily is right that there is definitely space for improvement. However, deleting this article would be really disproportionate. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 15 April 2016 (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.