Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runhardt Sander

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 per WP:BLP, as on the German Wikipedia. I have also deleted the associated images. Sandstein (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runhardt Sander

Sources of insufficiently reliable type to establish verifiability and notability. Biography of a living person with potentially reputation-damaging information. The corresponding article at the German Wikipedia was deleted after a deletion discussion which mentioned "Original Research" and "Quellen" (sources). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with nominator. There is also a question of notability here; if it was felt this man was truly notable, the German wikipedia would have revamped the article rather than delete it. This is a failed PROD, with the PROD tag having been removed because Sander is supposedly "internationally" notable. The article gives no indication of his reputation outside of Germany. Risker (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are much of sources, german, but not only weblinks also real documents in pdf-format. The person is importand for the German neo-nazi since decades. That in the German Wikipedia some discussion is dominated from neo-nazis is shown in this blog (also german) [1]. Therfore I thing it is important to keep here this article. An article for the French Wikipedia is in preparation, but the most poeple in the net understand english. The informations now in Xiando Information[2] are to hard to find. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven footnotes:

1. "Sander's contact site as a member of the International Sealand Business Club": Essentially a directory listing: no text in paragraph form.
2. "web site of Sander's second office": broken link.
3. "Rudolf article about Kendzia in the German Wikipedia": A Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are not to be used as Reliable sources.
4. "information of German anti-Fascists about Kendzia's group": This might possibly be useful as a source. I don't know anything about reliability of this publication. Sander is mentioned in the second-last paragraph, so it doesn't appear to be an article focussing primarily on him.
5. "foundation record of the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Bildungswerk e. V. initially the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Stiftung": This appears to be some sort of primary source document. No translation or explanation is provided. Presumably it documents the founding of an organization, with "RA Sander" as one of the people listed at the top. While that might be useful to verify a specific fact, it doesn't give much information to base a Wikipedia article on; and how do we know the "RA Sander" mentioned is the subject of this article?
6. "Die Nationalen e. V. in the German Wikipedia": Again, just a Wikipedia article.
7. "decision about the termination of Die Nationalen e. V., submitted to the court by Sander": Seems to be another primary source document.

No newspaper articles, books or similar material. No article focussing primarily on the subject. Only one article as such, and I don't know whether it's in a reliable publication or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Now I've worked hard another time to destroy your objections:

1. "Sander's contact site as a member of the International Sealand Business Club": You ar right it is no text in paragraph form, but it is a kind of advertisement. Explanation added
2. "web site of Sander's second office": You are right. And I saw, that it is not a second office, but a second web site for the same office. link fixed, description alternated
3. "Rudolf article about Kendzia in the German Wikipedia": Sorry, now I indicated a printed source.
4. "information of German anti-Fascists about Kendzia's group": I gave an explanation. Hope, you will find it conclusive.
5. "foundation record of the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Bildungswerk e. V. initially the Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Stiftung": Yes ist is a primary source document, but other documents may have the German secret service. Nothing ist published. I gave some explanations. Added a printed reference and another primary source document - never before published. If now somebody is looking for me, I know why! Hope, you will find it conclusive. The matter is very difficult and without any OR hardly to expose.
6. "Die Nationalen e. V. in the German Wikipedia": Sorry added a printed reference.
7. "decision about the termination of Die Nationalen e. V., submitted to the court by Sander": Sorry and you are so right. I linked only to the source in the German Wikipedia and saw not, that the most importand page (p.1) there not was included, because there it is a image integrated in the article. Now this bug is adjusted with a new pdf-file. Also I gave long explanations.

Another major change: link to his web site deleted - probably down. Text adjusted.

Please dont delete, and if you have any other objections give me the opportunity to improve the article. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article presents risks of defaming the subject under our policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. With great patience I imagine that someone with a knowledge of German and very familiar with our policies might be able to write a conformant article. However I believe the article is too risky in its present state. The term 'neo-Nazi' is being widely used and would need MUCH better sourcing than is now provided. So, lacking the necessary highly-skilled editorial help to rescue this article, I recommend it be deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be a defamatory statement, allways to use the term neo-nazi for nationalistic persons and organisations observed by the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Therefore I've replaced it with the more general expression right-wing extremist, used also in the annual reports of the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Hope, your objection is now at least a little bit appeased. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanations relating print sources added. Could you now be convinced, that it is an serious article about an important person? Please don't delete!Heinrich8 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.201.81.23 (talk) [reply]

In addition to the footnotes and external links, there is now a References section listing five publications. I don't know enough about these publications to make a decision -- how much information each one has about Runhardt Sander or how reliable the publications are. Who publishes them? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Near-total reliance on primary sources; what we would want to see is a profile in Der Spiegel or Der Stern or some other reliable secondary source. Without that this fails the notability guideline. Also on dangerous ground regarding WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 18 April 2008 (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.