Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Prinz


 * 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. North America1000 01:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Matthias Prinz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability WP:BIO. He seems to be a lawyer that has occasionally represented some large companies, but beyond that do see how he is that important. Rusf10 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable lawyer who has represented various celebrities / royals, getting a lot of coverage (including interviews etc.) from it. Also published author. Lots of references. I don't understand the nomination. —Kusma (t·c) 21:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * most of those references are not from reliable sources. Just because he has represented a celebrity does not necessarily make him notable. Also, the article was created by a user that has contributed to no other article, leading me to believe the user may somehow be associated with him.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look through the Google News coverage and you will see that there are stories about Prinz, not just about the cases he was involved in. See for example two RS and . If a lawyer is interviewed about his personal life, this kind of tells you people are interested in him as a person. While you may believe he is not "important", he clearly meets the notability guidelines. Sure, the article needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. —Kusma (t·c) 10:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This RS calls him "Germany's most well-known media lawyer". I rest my case. —Kusma (t·c) 10:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete interviews are not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is a bit of a mess but there seems to be quite subatantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's sufficient information, not just mentions, and I tend to accept the judgement of deWP for German figures--their standards for notability  are higher than ours. And he is the author of what seems to be the standard German textbook on the subject  DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the de.wiki is indicative of notability, and the article is not TNT-deletable at the moment. Appears to be a noted figure in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Handelsblatt source found by Kusma is definitive enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2017 (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.