Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst Hannawald

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. Star Mississippi 13:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ETA now aware nom was a sock, but it would have been a clear keep regardless, so no need to address in that regard. Star Mississippi 14:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Hannawald

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't meet WP:GNG and the significant coverage to satisfy the notability requirement for this article. One link is dead, and none can be found online when I look. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added things. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A simple brief look at the German Wikipedia might have shown that, maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't add other wikipedia articles information into another wikipedia article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You. Can. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that the other article was in another language, thought it was the same one.

Have a look at WP:RSUEC, although you can use non-english sources, I'd prefer if you translate it into English since this is an English version of Wikipedia and it would get a better understanding.

And..look at WP:CIRCULAR as it states that you cant use sources from different wikipedia articles to cite on different versions as well. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:CIRCULAR does not say that. I am inviting you to read it again with more attention.And I don't understand your comment about non-English sources. If you want to add other sources and translate other things, feel free. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The broken link has been repaired, Mushy Yank has expanded the article, and the German article contains additional material and references that can be used to further expand the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV requirements; the NY Times article is about the movie, not the actor, other available online sources are self-published. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT review is about the film but mentions him. Other sources I added are not self-published. It's the Berliner Zeitung (the article is attributed to his name, but that's evidently a mistake of the online version) and Tz. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added more sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the nominator and Prof.PMarini's statements. No Wikipedia policies bar articles from citing native language sources. The German sources provided by Mushy Yank are more than adequate to demonstrate the subject person has fulfilled GNG. The NYT review was obviously cited to prove the subject person has an officially credited lead role in the film Die Konsequenz instead of introducing the actor. The subject person has three officially credited sole leading/co-leading roles in the films Die Konsequenz, Die Faust in der Tasche [de], and TV series Zeit genug, fulfilling NACTOR#1 as well. Meeting two notability guidelines is quite an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click on the sources that the person has added before nominating for a keep? It only briefly mentions the subject. Normanhunter2 (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even click on the sources? How did you identify source#2, 3, 5, and 6 as briefly mentioning the subject person when the article is entirely about him?? Your denouncements aside, three easily identifiable lead roles is already an obvious keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources are self-published, which is what one other person has said. Normanhunter2 (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources are self-published? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to tell us which specific sources you identify as brief mentions and self-published, or should we make our own guesses? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the links have no author in it, so I'm assuming they're self-published. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is obviously not the definition of self-publishing... The German sources are from established media outlets (Bayerischer Rundfunk, Tz, Abendzeitung, and Nürnberger Nachrichten). Not all media outlets would credit the journalists, and it makes no sense to equate all uncredited news articles as being written by the subject person themselves. Also, only one of the aforementioned news sources did not credit the journalist, may I ask why the other sources are also being assumed as self-published? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple sources; can use sources that are cited in other language wikipedias; that’s not the same as citing articles from other language wikipedias as sources; cites can be in foreign languages; WP:AGF. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - German-language sources added and discussed above show WP:SIGCOV and subject meets WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.