Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Albrecht Prinz von Croy

Hello, I wrote the following notes (which is no vote but wants to correct the comment written by IP) - and while I has been writing the page has been archieved :( --Rax 22:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * my5cents on this comment:
 * (1) clear majority: on de:WP at the time I deleted the article, we got 4 votes belonging to this, two of them to "keep", two of them to "delete" it if there would be no more biographical relevance to see after the 7 days of discussion (meanwhile one of the voters to "keep" changed his opinion!). I decided to delete the article because I didn't see any elemantary progress to this direction.
 * The article was significantly expanded after the votes. When the first two people voted to give it more time, it was only a sub-stub. If you hadn't deleted the article history in contradiction with the result of the VfD process, you could have discovered this by yourself.
 * (2) totalitarian behaviour: no comment on this.
 * (3) After the deletion of the article, the author made very strong efforts to get the decision reversed (writing to all involved voters and in an offensive mode to me as the sysop; reinstalling the article many times and under different titles); at last he called for undeletion on the equivalent to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, but he got no support.
 * (4) The sysop Philipendula is only one of the about 7 sysops supporting my decision - it is very unkind and incorrect to drop her name here, where no one will be able to understand the background.
 * Benutzer:Philipendula seems to primarily be a revert warrior, and has herself engaged in nasty slander against me and even against the person the article deals with, which is really childish. I believe such a person should not be sysop.
 * (5) (and last) Belonging the relevance of this journalist (cause the author named the google stats): You may check th google results here, where I gave the links on three different spellings of the name. In short: The above mentioned 216 hits reduce to about 60 (reduced by google, hiding very similar results) - and all of them are pages either only naming Croy (most of them by the newspaper or affiliated pages) or blogs written by Croy himself, nothing about him.
 * It was the Germans who started citing Google stats, however manipulated/false stats where they claimed to only have 49 hits when the correct number was 216. This is the reason I mentioned this.
 * This is no vote, because I'm only part-time-visitor here and not familiar with the delition policy on en:WP. Excuse me writing very simple english - cu --Rax 22:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * copied to vfd page after talk with User:Thue --Rax 23:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not modify a closed archive page. "Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination)". "No further edits should be made to this page."

re-open of vfd-procedure
in agreement with User:Thue who archived this vfd page while I have been editing, the vfd is re-opend. --Rax 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved from main

 * Comment: The article was proposed deleted on the German WP and a clear majority voted to keep it. It was however unilaterally deleted, and the sysop Philipendula, who seems to have strong personal interest in the article, seems determined to delete a valid article about a well-known journalist and editor of one of the larger German newspapers at any cost. The German Wikipedia clearly has a problem with abusive behaviour from some sysops who delete articles in contradiction with community decision. The only argument for deleting I saw on the German Wikipedia was that he happened to be noble, and obviously some POV pushers with sysop access doesn't like nobles. Here on English Wikipedia we do however not accept such totalitarian behaviour. There is no reason for deleting this article, but Philipendula should be desyopped at the German Wikipedia.
 * For those interested in Google stats: The two used spellings of his name returns 216 Google hits.


 * I found the German vfd debate, and found it strange too as it indicated a keep to me too, but was wondering if my bad German language skills were tricking me. Since nobody has given a good reason for deletion I have removed the vfd template. Thue | talk 21:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

(1) clear majority: on de:WP at the time I deleted the article, we got 4 votes belonging to this, two of them to "keep", two of them to "delete" it if there would be no more biographical relevance to see after the 7 days of discussion (meanwhile one of the voters to "keep" changed his opinion!). I decided to delete the article because I didn't see any elemantary progress to this direction. (2) totalitarian behaviour: no comment on this. (3) After the deletion of the article, the author made very strong efforts to get the decision reversed (writing to all involved voters and in an offensive mode to me as the sysop; reinstalling the article many times and under different titles); at last he called for undeletion on the equivalent to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, but he got no support. (4) The sysop Philipendula is only one of the about 7 sysops supporting my decision - it is very unkind and incorrect to drop her name here, where no one will be able to understand the background. (5) (and last) Belonging the relevance of this journalist (cause the author named the google stats): You may check th google results here, where I gave the links on three different spellings of the name. In short: The above mentioned 216 hits reduce to about 60 (reduced by google, hiding very similar results) - and all of them are pages either only naming Croy (most of them by the newspaper or affiliated pages) or blogs written by Croy himself, nothing about him. IMHO (and following the deletion in de:WP) the journalist is not notable but this is no vote, because I'm only part-time-visitor here and not familiar with the delition policy on en:WP. Excuse me writing very simple english - cu --Rax 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC) vfd reopened in agreement with User:Thue --Rax 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * my5cents on the "comment" above:

Replies:
 * clear majority: on de:WP at the time I deleted the article, we got 4 votes belonging to this, two of them to "keep", two of them to "delete" it if there would be no more biographical relevance to see after the 7 days of discussion (meanwhile one of the voters to "keep" changed his opinion!). I decided to delete the article because I didn't see any elemantary progress to this direction. 
 * The article was significantly expanded after the votes. When the first two people voted to give it more time, it was only a sub-stub. If you hadn't deleted the article history in contradiction with the result of the VfD process, you could have discovered this by yourself.
 * The sysop Philipendula is only one of the about 7 sysops supporting my decision - it is very unkind and incorrect to drop her name here, where no one will be able to understand the background.
 * Benutzer:Philipendula seems to primarily be an aggressive revert warrior, and has herself engaged in nasty slander against me and even against the person the article deals with, which is really childish. I believe such a person should not be sysop.
 * cause the author named the google stats
 * It was the Germans who started citing Google stats, however manipulated/false stats where they claimed to only have 49 hits when the factual number was 216. This is the reason I mentioned this.
 * IMHO (and following the deletion in de:WP) the journalist is not notable
 * The Handelsblatt is a leading German newspaper and is clearly notable. The Wikipedia has articles about quite a lot less notable people than editors of newspapers like Handelsblatt, given that m:Wiki is not paper. The real reason for the illegal deletion on de: was something which looked like hatred against nobles. You have failed to cite a single relevant argument for deleting this page.