Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Loeper

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 Volt Germany. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Loeper

[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)

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Chirota (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it meets the general notability guideline criteria, which is also cited as a criterion: "Even people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. --Heideneii (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to Volt Germany is a natural WP:ATD. Some more sources could help to demonstrate WP:GNG notability. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few --Heideneii (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Volt Germany, for now. I'm not convinced that he meets WP:GNG since I haven't seen any significant third-party coverage on him. (The FAZ article has something but I don't think it counts towards GNG.) A redirect would be appropriate since people are likely to search for his name on WP because of his co-leadership of Volt. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – inclined to agree with the emerging consensus here, although it is honestly relatively close. NPOL's obviously a miss, but I like this article in de Volkskrant (specifically the word "kiesdrempel", as it were), and getting a long interview in the taz, while probably not the hardest thing in the world, does count toward something. But since much of the rest is (often local) routine announcements, candidate checks or passing mentions in pieces about his party, I'd also say he's not quite there yet. Maybe with another election cycle, but then again, you only get to be the unnerving upstart once... AngryHarpy‍^talk 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very neutral: "the unnerving upstart once" --Heideneii (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heideneii, that's just my infamous penchant for aggressively arbitrary alliterations coming through, though there's definitely a little bit of truth to the observation – after all, remember these guys? Anyway, back to topic... AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a few German sources have been added since nomination that have not been evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have had a look at the sources recently added. The Volkskrant article singled out by AngryHarpy is good, but I don't think that any of the others amount to significant coverage. I'm still not convinced that he's notable independently of his party; I'll be sticking with 'redirect'. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2021 (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.