Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Wickboldt


 * 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   redirect to Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis. Consensus to delete. However, there is content regarding him in Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis so I will redirect to there. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Werner Wickboldt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article on "an amateur Atlantis researcher" who clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC and appears to fail the general notability guideline as well. The cited references do not constitute significant treatment in reliable, independent sources, and I'm not seeing such treatment in Google searches. The Google Scholar hits, for instance, are one paper with two citations, several passing mentions, several results for people with similar names, and one WP mirror. Deor (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with the nominee. Such articles need to sell themselves more if they are to avoid being deleted.--ЗAНИA talk talk] 23:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Topic's notability appears to pass WP:BASIC, per these reliable sources:, , and also, to a lesser extent, , . Per WP:BASIC, several independent sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Three of these sources appear to be just Richard Freund trying to use Wickboldt to bolster his (Freund's) fringe claim. I'm not convinced that they are independent and not from the same press release or press conference. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fox News Latino and BBC News are definitely independent, and reliable. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Why are you so sure they are independent of Freund's press efforts? I think they are based on the same material. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly had examined those "sources" before nominating the article for deletion, and I judged that they didn't constitute significant coverage of the person, as called for in the GNG. You seem to have ignored the "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" part of the WP:BASIC guideline you cite. Deor (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not independent coverage of the person, being mentioned in passing in a reliable source is typical WP:ROUTINE coverage, which doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Secret account 05:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not noteworthy person - a simple line in a parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is the topic "not notable?" The availability of reliable sources appears to demonstrate notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in the delete side as well, but Stuartyeates your drive by one minute per AFD delete votes don't help the situation, the AFD administrators are starting to discount your "votes". Secret account 05:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and/or redirect to Location hypotheses of Atlantis where this material is adequately covered, per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to have the required minimum, could be expanded. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The news coverage of the site mentions he was the first to come up with the idea that it was Atlantis. Lot of books mention him as well.  He is notable because his research and accomplishment is cited by others, and given coverage in the news even.   D r e a m Focus  21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might favor us with the titles of the "lot of books" that mention him, because I'm not seeing them. In the Google Books search one gets by clicking on the appropriate "find sources" link above the nomination, I see one passing mention, three WP mirrors, and ten hits that are obviously about other people. Deor (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I was looking at the sources closely and they are all passing mentions about an "alleged" location of Atlantis in Southern Spain, which is of course a human interest story, we don't keep those kinds of articles per WP:BLP1E. And Dream Focus should look at the sources closely before voting on an AFD, I checked Google books and none of them mention him and he's clearly not the first scientist to hypothesize where Atlantis is. I'm not a strong of a deletionist as I used to be (I'm more of a merge/redirect type), but seeing AFDs recently this inclusionism is getting a bit out of hand. Secret account 04:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As per my earlier comment and those of others who agree that the sources don't meet our requirements. If needs be, leave his name as a redirect to the Location article. Freund is fringe and simply using Wickboldt to bolster his own argument. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 12 October 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.