Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torsten Haß


 * 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. Despite several efforts by the article creator and an editor with a COI to show notability for the subject, they have not been able to convince other editors that there are sufficient sources. RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Torsten Haß

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not relevant, autobiography. Heanor (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are 93 (?!) articles about this subject mostly in very small wikipedias. They all appear to be created by SPAs. This could use attention from a global administrator or someone with project-wide rights. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Concerning the notability accusation: (1) Torsten Haß "has created […] a significant or well-known work" (WP:AUTHOR) of German language librarianship, the Bibliotheken für Dummies. Cf. |library possessions of Bibliotheken für Dummies in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, WorldCat, part of the first external link in the Torsten Haß article. --- (2) Bibliotheken für Dummies has been "the primary subject of […] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:AUTHOR), but the text passage concerning reviews was deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle because of promo concerns. --- (3) Additional coverage of Torsten Haß plus Bibliotheken für Dummies e.g. in the following German language library journals: Bibliotheksdienst 55(2021),p.934; Bibliotheksdienst 54(2020),p.943; BuB 72(2020),p.611; Die Bücherei (archdiocese Cologne) 2019, issue12, p.3; Bibliotheken heute (LBZ RLP: library center of Rhineland-Palatinate) 2020, issue3, p.127. Some of this articles were mentioned and hyperlinked in the WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies; this article was nominated by MrsSnoozyTurtle for speedy deletion 6:30 26 September 2021 and deleted 11:00 26 September 2021 because of promo concerns… And in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this coverages in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… --- (4) The WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies also had references that Bibliotheken für Dummies is "the subject of instruction at two or more […] colleges, universities" (WP:BKCRIT)… But in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… ++++ Concerning the autobiography accusation: (1) The COI tag was by Deb. If you look at the talks, Deb asked user th0815 (<2% of the contributions to the article = "major contributor to this article"???) in his user talk if he was Torsten Haß, th0815 admitted it and proposed to delete his 2%. Deb denied. I (= major contributor to this article) was not asked the same/similar/any questions. Strange. --- (2) Specific text passages with a non-neutral POV (if existing) were not mentioned. In my opinion, th0815 should have deleted his passages, he proposed to do so, but he wasn’t allowed: "don't edit the article in future", Deb stated in the user talk th0815. --- (3) If I would be a German author, I would make an article in the German WP. Would make more sense, wouldn’t it? ++++ Concerning the comment by AleatoryPonderings: In my opinion, cross-wiki spam made months later should play no role in this discussion about notability and autobiography. Otherwise malicious users could plan cross-wiki spam to harm any older article in an AfD discussion. --Immanuel Giel (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. Not a single newspaper article, interview, or mention can be found that isn't derivative of the many wiki articles recently created. The single not self-published work, a title in the "...for Dummies" series, is neither "well-known" nor "significant". I was going to quote its sales rank on Amazon here. But, as it turns out, Amazon(.de) doesn't even have it in its catalogue, not even used. The spam campaign referenced above also leaves a bad taste. And while a policy of deleting articles for that reason would allow malicious use as mentioned above, there is no reason to believe that to be the case here.  K. Oblique  03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Only commenting (because COI, as I’ve learned): No articles? Some of them were mentioned by Immanuel Giel, and these articles are not derivative of the cross-wiki spam (most or all of them were published before the cross-wiki spam); most of them you can google. No sales rank? Of cause not: because of the publishers jubilee a Second edition was already published, for free, in the web, in 2021. You can google it… -- th0815 09:42, 16 January 2022 (CET)
 * Comment no.2 (COI): I forgot: The last copies of the printed first edition (2019) are for free, if one contacts the publisher. Would be stupid to pay for a first edition copy (and stupid to try a sell by the publisher, by amazon or someone else). And the second edition (2021) is published only as a free pdf because of the publishers jubilee, so there can be no amazon data set. -- th0815 11:50, 16 January 2022 (CET)
 * Comment no.3 (COI): By the way: Is "bad taste" an argument? -- th0815 15:03, 16 January 2022 (CET)
 * 'I just now removed he material that belongso nly in a cv, such as a full list of his book reviews and his fiction, which seems to have very little distribution.  DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It's noteworthy that the eWPs in which thereare \not an article, are the French, German, and Italian. I think the reason is their selectivity. I don't think we want to show we're worse than they are. .  DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (COI): As far as I know, "notability is not established because another wiki has a page on the subject" (quote from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Notability; maybe one might find something similiar in the English language WP). Th0815 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment no.2 (COI): Found it in en.wikipedia.org!: "On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted." WP:OTHERLANGS Th0815 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you try to edit AfD discussions, you can read the sentence: "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." And, well, except Immanuel Giel (who in his user talk stoically stated about another delete: "Let it be") until now my person seems to be the only user who tries to do something like citing guidelines/essays (if I find them ;-)... Except one user, who uses Amazon ranking as an argument (smells like "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking)" – WP:INVALIDBIO) to refute a library possessions argument pro keep… I'm curious about the decision. But not curious enough to wait for the decision and therefore go to bed later today. Good night! Th0815 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus proposal: Modify and keep, to shorten the discussion: a new text version (1) based on the changes made by DGG (see above, 19:13, 16 January 2022), --- (2) inserting the text passage concerning reviews (line 20, deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle) as a last paragraph into the section "Carreer as an author" (to address MrsSnoozyTurtles promo concern a little bit and act according above mentioned "the primary subject of […] reviews" (WP:AUTHOR)), --- (3) deleting the non-fictional works in the intro, because they are not mentioned in the DGG-version of the article anymore, --- (4) deleting the infobox made by the COI user th0815, --- (5) deleting the COI tag because of "4", --- (6) deleting the empty "See also" left over by DGG, --- (7) deleting the header "non-fictional works", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (8) changing the header "Works" to "Works (selection)", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (9) finally, in the Edit Summary: referring on the AfD-keep-Consensus found on January Xth; otherwise (1)-(8) have to be listed, in my opinion +++ Alas, I should not do it: In my interpretation, user Deb has warned me not to change anything in this article (Deb: "preclude […] you from editing ", 19:55, 1 December 2021); she/he has warned me not in my user talk, but in the user talk of COI user th0815. Strange…  Immanuel Giel (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional remark @delete opinion 16 January 2022 UTC (COI): Even if "no articles" meant online articles and even if one would not able to google it – it would be no valid argument, I think: "There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online." (WP:PAPERONLY) Th0815 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment @consensus proposal 18 January 2022 (COI): According WP:WTRMT no.7 it is ″strongly″ recommended ″that the tagging editor initiate[s] a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so […] and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.“ The tagging editor hasn't initiated a discussion. So, the COI tag can to be removed anyway, I think. Th0815 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not satisfy the general notability guideline. I also believe the subject does not satisfy the notability guideline for creative professionals. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (COI): „Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.“ (WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE). Th0815 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe i could have been more clear. Torsten Haß (and pen name Kim Godal) has not received significant coverage in in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus i'd say he is not presumed to be notable enough for a stand-alone wikipedia article; thats what the WP:GNG tells me. Further, i believe that Torsten Haß does not satisfy any of the four criteria listed at WP:NAUTHOR. If you know any good sources that describe Torsten Haß in depth and are independent of him, please bring them up in this discussion. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nyamo Kurosawa, and thank you for your comment. - @WP:GNG, part significant coverage: The usage of an italic Torsten Haß (in contrast to Immanuel Giels Torsten Haß plus Bibliotheken für Dummies; see above 15:46, 12 January 2022) implies that there has to be significant coverage with Torsten Haß as a sole/main topic, doesn’t it? That’s not necessary, I think: „Significant coverage […] does not need to be the main topic of the source material“ (WP:GNG), so secondary topics are enough. The most usual secondary topic in an article about a book is the author and details about him/her (e.g. affiliation, funtion). It is not necessary that the coverage of an author in an article about his/her book is „in depth“, if there are multiple articles (and there are multiple articles listed by Immanuel Giel): „If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability“ (WP:BASIC). - @WP:GNG, part reliable sources, independent of the subject: A few words about some journals listed by Immanuel Giel: Bibliotheksdienst  was founded in 1961, since 2013 it is published by De Gruyter, a publisher specializing in academic literature, to cite the English WP. BuB  was founded 1922 and is published by the Berufsverband Information Bibliothek  - Professional Association Information & Library; BuB is the most widely used German-language library journal, to cite the German WP. Bibliotheken heute  was founded in 2005 and is published by the Landesbibliothekszentrum Rheinland-Pfalz . So, the first journal is by an academic publisher, the second by a Professional Association, the third by a library center owned by the German Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate. If these journals/publishers are accused to be unreliable and/or dependent, no journal (or other source) might exist in any article... and of cause I am not able to bring non-existent journals/publishers up in this discussion - @WP:AUTHOR: As Immanuel Giel stated on 12 January 2022, she/he thinks that Torsten Haß „has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work“ that has „been the primary subject of […] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews“ (WP:AUTHOR, no.3). Immanuel Giel thinks the prevalence of Bibliotheken für Dummies in German language libraries to be a proof of „significant or well-known“ and stated that the hint to the book reviews was eliminated by user MrsSnoozyTurtle because of his/her „promo concern“.  Because I do not want to violate WP:REPEAT, here an additional information about the significance of Bibliotheken für Dummies: „which has now been reprinted twice due to high demand and reached a total circulation of 60000 copies“ (my translation, from BuB 72.2020, p.611, printed only about 15 months after Bibliotheken für Dummies had been published; this BuB reference had been cited in the WP article about the book Bibliotheken für Dummies which was speedy deleted on proposal of MrsSnoozyTurtle because of his/her promo concern) Th0815 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it short; the sources listed so far in this discussion:
 * is a short announcement of the publishing of the e-book version of "Bibliotheken for Dummies", not significant coverage of Torsten Haß or the book.
 * --> 52 words announcement of the publishing of the e-book version of "Bibliotheken for Dummies", written by Torsten Haß himself
 * --> can't access, but judging by the title („Bibliotheken für Dummies“: 2., überarbeitete Auflage als E-Book), probably is also just an announcement as are the two sources i could access.
 * --> can't access, but would be good to know what exactly is written about Torsten Haß or his books in this one (again judging by the title "Überregionale Kennzeichnung von Pflichtexemplaren.", Haß might not be the main focus of the article).
 * --> couldn't locate the source at all.
 * It would be helpful if someone with access to the "Bibliotheksdienst" sources could give info about the coverage Torsten Haß has received in these sources (including the authors); even better would be excerpts. As for the significant or well-known work aspect of WP:Author; Haß co-authored one of about 700 books of the German version of For Dummies. So far, very unsure that book is a significant or well-known work. Links to further coverage of Haß or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about his books appreciated. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nyamo Kurosawa, for your valid arguments citing relevant guidelines… so at last there is a basis for a thorough discussion & judgement by the closer. Bibliotheksdienst is embargoed, but to add something: Die Bücherei  is not mentioning Torsten Haß. - Back to the bold claim „Not a single newspaper article, interview, or mention can be found that isn't derivative of the many wiki articles recently created“ (03:46, 16 January 2022), and as a basis for a thorough discussion & judgement by the closer: „quick & dirty“ at least two newspaper articles can be found that can’t be derivative (because of their date), published in Die Rheinpfalz:,  - As already stated, two reviews were mentioned in the article, but deleted by MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:38, 8 October 2021 because of his/her promo concern. I found no more. - Maybe for further keep/delete opinions with valid arguments citing relevant guidelines WP:100WORDS is helpful, although the title 100WORDS is misleading, I think: „Fifty such words would likely be significant“ (also WP:100WORDS). If 50 words are enough: There is biographic material about Torsten Haß in Bibliotheken für Dummies; about 60 words, pp.7&49 in the second edition, pp.7&48 in the first edition, to be found in the References section of the Torsten Haß article. - Should I have brought all of this into this discussion earlier? I don’t think so, because until Nyamo Kurosawa came I  saw just opinions instead of opinions with valid arguments citing relevant guidelines. And, generally spoken, this was not the way a AfD debate in WP should be conducted, I believe. - Links to further coverage of Haß or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about his books appreciated. Th0815 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lunch break in Germay, so here are a handful of links @coverage of the book, in two cases with more than a trivial mentioning (-> Walker/Clinton/ThreeBlindMice example for trivial mentioning in WP:GNG): affiliation and function of the author: Municipial library Goslar, top entry [stadtbibliothek.goslar.de/68-lesefoerderung/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=74&Itemid=250]; Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, bottom right ; Stuttgart Media University, last paragraph „recommended E-Books…“, first entry ; Municipial library Ludwigshafen, top entry last page ; Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University, second half, as a „tip(p)!“ Th0815 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Request: Can you give a clear, succinct WP:THREE please? Minimal or no explanations, just a list, with links if possible. Numbered with # would be helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer : Thank you, Asilvering. I'm not sure if WP:THREE refers to a single argument or to all of them. So in the following I give TWO sources at the single arguments, because two/„multiple“ (=„more than one“, cf. Merriam Webster Dictionary ) is required sometimes anyway. Th0815 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bibliotheken für Dummies: significant or well-known? (WP:AUTHOR):
 * #1: Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog: More than 60 library possessions:
 * #2: BuB, 72.2020, issue 11, p.611: High demand -> 60.000 printed copies between publication of 1st ed. (Oct. 2019) and publication of journal text (Nov. 2020):
 * Bibliotheken für Dummies: multiple reviews? (WP:AUTHOR):
 * #1: ub info, 2019, issue 11, p.13 (seems to be print only, so only the data set in Zeitschriftendatenbank):
 * #2: Spektrum, 2019, issue 11, p.39:
 * Bibliotheken für Dummies: subject of instruction at two or more colleges/universities? (WP:BKCRIT)
 * #1: University of Tübingen: ub info, 2019, issue 11, p.13 (seems to be print only, so only the data set in Zeitschriftendatenbank):
 * #2: Stuttgart Media University: (last paragraph: recommendations, top entry)
 * Torsten Haß: significant coverage? (WP:GNG, if according to the second example non-trivial mention simply means „more than just the name“)
 * #1: Municipial library Goslar: (top entry: affiliation, function)
 * #2: Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University (second half of the website: affiliation, function)
 * Torsten Haß: significant coverage? (WP:GNG), if the essay WP:100WORDS (which means 50 words, so the text tells me) has more weight than the second example in the guideline WP:GNG)
 * #1: Bibliotheken für Dummies, 2nd ed., pp.7&49: (combined about 60 words)
 * #2: Die Rheinpfalz, July 7th, 2014: (about 620 words)
 * Lordy. At some point you just have to say delete as obvious promo and COI, I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2022 (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.