Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf-Dieter Storl


 * 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. kingboyk (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Wolf-Dieter Storl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and flagged since 2010. He's written some books but I'm not seeing significant third-party coverage. There's an Imbd listing of talkshow appearances, but again, that's the same problem as here - not RS and likely created as self-promotion. As no one has seen fit to improve it after ten years... - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I gave his name a search on Google News and there was some coverage, but since it's all in German I have no ability to judge what quality it is of.★Trekker (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A cursory glace at the articles on Google news (Clicking through the pages I see a couple quality newspaper articles) and the German version of the bio suggests notability. However I'm not against WP:TNT since the bio is rather empty. Mattg82 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the German version, the largest sections of content are either unsourced, or only sourced to his own writings. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed after another look, it is not as good at it first appeared. I think there is some German sources but Delete or Draftify as it stands. Mattg82 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify unless someone improves it soon, the German wikipedia article has far more references that indicate he may well be notable but as its a BLP it shouldn't stay in mainspace in this condition, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLP with no third-party sources, looks promotional. Needs deletion, not draftification.  Sandstein   10:12, 2 February 2020 (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.