Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

WP:DSDE

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Germany. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Germany|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Germany related AfDs

Scan for Germany related Prods
Scan for Germany related TfDs

Germany

ANTHM

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

Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:MUSICIAN, and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Poetry, Music, Ethiopia, Germany, Russia, United States of America, New York, and Texas. Zuck28 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barajas

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

The subject appears to have played at the highest level for the developmental team of Atlanta United before eventually going to the fourth tier of German football where he is no longer listed as a member of the team. He may have possibly retired. https://lsk-hansa.de/mannschaften/1-herren-landesliga-lueneburg/ WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Germany, Georgia (U.S. state), Kentucky, and Ohio. Raskuly (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet more non-notable footyspam. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dröscher

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I will put aside the question for the time being as to whether Heim Theory really does pass WP:GNG/WP:NFRINGE and whether we need two articles (one on the "theory" and one on the eponymous author), but this article seems to be claiming a kind of inherited notability from those obscure points. I don't really see serious coverage of this person in independent sources. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (inherited notability), seems to be notable only for developing Heim theory, but the theory's article in turn credits most of its proposal to Burkhard Heim and does not mention Droscher at all. GoldRomean (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited and GS cites are too small to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The only tangible achievement cited is being co-author of a paper that won a minor award given by a sub-committee which the other co-author headed. - Donald Albury 13:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of being, by all indications, a marginal figure even for a marginal topic. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 2006 AfD got it mostly wrong -- even within the (fringe) area of work isn't sufficiently cited as an authority. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and seems somewhat covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly no reception in the academic world that is evident, a single paper award is not enough for NPROF#2. Whatever can be salvaged can be written in Heim Theory. --hroest 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even setting aside the WP:FRINGE issue, which requires in-depth coverage by mainstream sources to provide properly neutral coverage of his work, his citations are not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and a best-paper award (much of the basis for the 2006 keep) is not enough for #C2 (nor enough to show lasting influence for #C1). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Coverage of Dröscher is minimal and largely tied to Heim Theory, which lacks mainstream recognition and falls under WP:FRINGE. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tajmar

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodward (physicist) and I came over here to find a WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTCV promotional article for an academic that I do not see passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. None of these sources is truly independent of the subject in the way we would want for a proper biography what with the WP:FRINGEBLP implications. The cringeworthy picture included makes me think there has probably been some WP:PROMO going on and while AfD is not cleanup, this seems to me to indicate that a WP:TNT is warranted and I doubt anything will arise from the ashes. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Spaceflight, and Germany. jps (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the past discussion from 2008 about whether this article should be deleted seemed to have suffered at the time from an undue credulity that the ideas for which Tajmar's notability was being argued, were somehow not WP:FRINGE proposals. The benefit of time, I hope, shows that they really, truly are and that the sourcing does not rise to the required WP:FRIND levels for proper inclusion in our encyclopedia. jps (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with sourcing required. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Which sourcing? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the extremely low bar of WP:NPROF. Most of their papers are barely cited, and when they are it's often in predatory journals or bottom tier ones. Not all the time, but often enough that citations are too low to matter. Awards are also minor. This is not a notable researcher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After evaluating the sources in the article and searching for other possibilities, I agree with jps and Headbomb. Nothing indicates that an article is warranted here. The awards are inconsequential fluff, and the citation record would be unremarkable even if all the citations came from worthwhile journals, which they don't. (Two of the sources currently in the article are conference proceedings. In physics, that's little better than writing a blog post about your work.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tajmar’s TU Dresden profile [1] lists his key publications from 2003 to 2011. These have a median of about 25 citations on Google Scholar, which is modest for an academic. A JSTOR search only turns up a single passing mention, which doesn’t suggest much academic attention. His CV also shows no listed publications from 2012 to 2020, despite being updated in 2020. This falls short of notability under WP:PROF and WP:GNG. On top of that, the article also gives weight to a 2006 gravitomagnetic experiment that has never been independently replicated, raising WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE concerns. This is more than a cleanup issue. The subject does not meet the standard for a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, does not todaly clear WP:GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was looking through all of his highly cited papers (100+ citations) which are usually relevant to establish NPROF#1 notability and of the 5 papers, none of them were actual research papers with him as first author, the others were either large collaborations with dozens of authors or review papers or a book. There is one paper that contains some experimental data on a particular type of propulsion method but one moderately cited paper is not enough for NPROF. Based on this I dont think we can reasonably argue that he passes WP:NPROF#1 and I could not find evidence for him passing any other criteria of NPROF. --hroest 15:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Leroux

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

Non notable businessperson. Being president of FECCIA could be mentioned there, but that's a WP:SINGLEEVENT thing to be notable for. No longstanding coverage or anything to meet WP:GNG. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Biek

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

Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was a few sentences at [[2]] and an interview at [[3]], but without better sourcing this subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Germany, Michigan, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article from Oberhessische Presse looks like SIGCOV: https://archive.is/2hKhp Robby.is.on (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are the good guys (Bröckers/Schreyer)

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

Hi, this is a book written by two 9/11 (and other) conspiracy theorists and completely irrelevant. The article uses almost no references and the author of the article is under investigation in de.wikipedia.org for excessive usage of KI and lots of fake references. Jo1971 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like an overly wordy article that mostly quotes the book or the sources. I'm not sure why it has Russian and other foreign sources for a German book. I spot checked the ones in the German wiki they look about the same as the ones here. I can't find any book reviews; this feels PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, you seem to have missed that there are links to book reviews in the article. See the refs in my !vote below for three examples. Jahaza (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article including[4][5][6] clearly demonstrate the books notability per WP:BOOK #1. We can easily stubify the the article if necessary. Jahaza (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and since there's no English edition and the book is not well known, the article should be moved to "Wir sind die Guten." Jahaza (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article was created in the German Wikipedia before the technical possibility of using AI. It was recently translated from German, but nothing was changed. The sources are verifiable. It is true that for my more recent articles, unintentional errors have unfortunately arisen due to inexperienced and too optimistic/credulous/naive/trusting use of AI and those errors need to be corrected. However, this has nothing to do with the quality of the old articles. Furthermore, the criterion of political bias cannot apply, as very harsh criticism from almost all reviews available online has also been incorporated with references.Gabel1960 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ritter (titular name)

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

Fails WP:SALAT for being too broad. ~~We don't have lists of people simply because they have a relatively lowly aristocratic title.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Well, upon further looking, lists do go down as far as knights. However, the inclusion criterion is very odd: "only those whose main Wikipedia article includes the titular 'Ritter' in the article name", so I'm thinking it fails due to WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an important difference between a ritter and a knight. Ritter-hood is inherited, so it says nothing about the achievements of the individual who has the name (beyond that they managed to get born). Knighthoods are conferred on an individual for doing something (even if it's only being a successful civil servant who achieved retirement-age) so it carries a bit of personal weight. A list of knights is therefore more meaningful than a list of ritters. Elemimele (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ritter-hood is inherited, so it says nothing about the achievements of the individual who has the name (beyond that they managed to get born) is now my favorite quote from AfD. Toadspike [Talk] 11:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's a sort of synthesis, and not really a viable navigational list. These people are mostly notable for something entirely unrelated to the Ritter in their name. Even if they all take their nobility seriously, the list would be analogous to making an article Notable British people who happen to come from a family where someone got knighted. If our readers were likely (which I don't believe) to be looking for the intersection ("Notable" AND "Ritter-in-name") then it would be a reasonable navigational list. Otherwise, unless people have written about the intersection, it's a synthesis. Elemimele (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for having really weird inclusion criteria. It seems like more could be written about the "Ritter von ..." name format, but it's probably most suitable for the main Ritter article. Toadspike [Talk] 11:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Tschuggnall

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has drummed with a lot of projects but lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient significant coverage that satisfies GNG requirements to show the subject's notability as a musician. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away boilerplate !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so far, i don't see the significant coverage in indepentent sources to pass gng, at least with what is currently cited in the article. Tschuggnall seems to have co-written a textbook; finding a lot of websites to buy it online, but no in-depth coverage about him. I'll try to find more sources the next days. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Facebook, his own website, blogs, and sources about other people don't contribute to notability. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wasn't able to find independent wp:sigcov of him; almost every piece of online coverage is either passing mentions or not independent. I couldn't assess this paywalled source. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

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

This Article relies so much on unreliable sources and no improvement have been made, I was thinking I could find a source with independent coverage but I couldn’t find, The subject has contributed in many field of entertainment yet fails to have WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO, fails WP:GNG per no particularly article that speaks about him independently on multiple secondary sources, most of the citations are either usercreated space under a music website where he has listed his musical works. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, Advertising, Germany, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Even after three weeks of AfD, this article has no sources. WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 17:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

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

We already have List of prison escapes, List of prisoner-of-war escapes, and German POW camps in WWII, so possibly merge? But no sources, making things confusing and hard to verify (home run?) and has been edited maybe ~50 times in the 15 years since its creation. GoldRomean (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing different from what we already have. Koshuri ^(グ) 10:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prisoner-of-war escapes any entries that can be sourced and don't already exist there or in the linked sublist List of attempts to escape Oflag IV-C. The criterion of 5+ prisoners is arbitrary anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a better method of organisation than putting them all in the main article, as the list is rather long. Sources can be added. Element10101 T ~ C 02:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What about the arbitrary cutoff of five POWs? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary cutoff? Element10101 AIW WPI TOLT ~ C 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, arbitrary. Who decided that five = mass escape? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not really seeing a case. Interesting content, neatly presented. Sort of thing Wikipedia exists for. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2025 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

Germany

ANTHM

Kevin Barajas

Walter Dröscher

Martin Tajmar

Roland Leroux

Samuel Biek

We are the good guys (Bröckers/Schreyer)

Ritter (titular name)

Christian Tschuggnall

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

List of mass escapes from German POW camps

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also