Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilman Hausherr

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 of the debate was Keep (13/4).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman Hausherr

Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vote withdrawn. No longer have strong feelings in either direction after details added. --Lucent 01:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) --Lucent 08:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This guy is a notable critic of Scientology in Germany. If we keep Barbara Schwarz we must keep him. Pilatus 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN, D. We should delete the Schwarz article too. ComCat 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The voters of two AfDs didn't think we should. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was actually undecided but Pilatus's argument is very convincing; Tilman Hausherr is far more notable than Barbara Schwarz and two separate AfDs both resulted in the keeping of that article. I have, however, added more information about what specifically makes Hausherr notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye. Barbara Schwarz is a poor comparison. Let's say Tilman is the German equivalent to Dave Touretzky. Pilatus 02:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly does "She was the president of the German branch of the Church of Scientology from August 3, 1983 until July 10, 1984." make Barbara Schwartz not notable? President of the Church of Scientology makes her a important figure in that religion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds better than it is - "president" in Scientology is in fact a public speaker, not an executive. Shows up in talk shows, etc., is usually well drilled for that task, but has nothing to say within the organization. And president of the German Branch of Scientology in 1983 - that was the churches of Hamburg and Munich, and two smaller ones in Berlin and Düsseldorf, all of them managed by the management org in Copenhagen (by daily phone calls) - not by Barbara Schwartz or any German president. Actually, I could recall the names of the Executive Directors of the local churches, but I can't remember having heard of Barbara Schwartz in that time (I was on staff in Copenhagen at the time). Irmgard 10:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Glorified PR chief, eh? Whereas Tilman has spoken out often enough to be registered as an Enemy of the CoS on their RFW site, which accuses him of "religious intolerance" in an incredibly trumped-up manner. 206.114.20.121 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Barbara Schwarz only marginally rates an article for her CoS work. She really' gets one for her notable achievements in the area of the Freedom of Information Act - where a judge told her she'd have to pay for each request from now on, and the ACLU notably didn't shit - David Gerard 08:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it does sound like an article on the web site, or the German anti-scientology movement, would be a better article than this one. However, if we can address more of his anti-Scientology activism or whatever, this might be worthwhile. Matthew Brown 02:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the article proves him notable enough. - splot 03:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but move the link to Hausherr's website to the Scientology article. Reyk 05:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable critic of Scientology, established by his appearance on the Scientology-sponsored website Religious Freedom Watch. Edwardian 06:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep this too please this person is a notable critic really we can not erase this Yuckfoo 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edwardian and Pilatus. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edwardian and Pilatus. Irmgard 10:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant critic of Scientology. Squiddy 14:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Edwardian/Pilatus/Squiddy. 206.114.20.121 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course :-) There are 7 other Wikipedia articles that mention this entry. Tilman 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
Keep. Gateman1997 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NNN. Turnstep 00:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preaky 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - speaking as a subject area expert, he rates an article just for the Scientology stuff. He's also the author of the fairly popular Xenu's Link Sleuth weblink checker - David Gerard 08:43, 18 November 2005 (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.