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. There were a number of arguments given here without any basis in policy (and as a side note to @Prinzvonzavelstein: we have no control over de-wiki, and ombudsmen handle a very niche set of areas nothing to do with this).

Of the policy-backed reasoning, it was premised on notability. It's not clear-cut, but there is sufficient majority indicating that there was sufficient sourcing (either as GNG or as an author) that a relist did not seem necessary.

There was firm agreement that the article had some major issues (though focus varied as to content, sourcing, or format) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Kaiser[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Procedural as a user wants this at AfD but doesn't know how to start one. I am neutral.

Has been deleted 4 times just in 2020 at his home .de Wikipedia and finaly has been locked. Not notable - https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&page=Gunnar_Kaiser Spiderone 09:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at first sight it looks like a GNG pass to me. Not sure the case for deletion is particularly strong. Mccapra (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Well, he's been quite notable during the COVID lockdowns as a ciritc of government policies. Other than that he's also an author. There has been a notable scandal about him being deplatformed by a foundation that had before invited him as one of the main guests in a discussion about free speech and cancel culture: [1]--Woman on a mission 👶🏼👦🏼👧🏼🙅🏼🕵🏼‍♀️👩‍💻 21:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the German discussions [2],[3] [4], I can see no particularly good reason for us to follow our German colleagues. There is a lot of bureaucracy in these deletions, and it seems dewiki is just waiting for the person to publish a second novel to be an automatic pass of their notability criteria. He has recently been in the news, although mostly in right-wing media as far as I can see, participating in debates about cancel culture and as a libertarian lockdown critic. I think there's enough for us out there. The article does need quite a bit of work, though. For example, the bibliography section lists German texts, but uses self-translated English titles without referencing the original titles, and should be removed and redone from scratch. But who knows, maybe he would enjoy it if we cancel him? —Kusma (t·c) 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is much of pressure to comment in a very negative way against Gunnar Kaiser. Almost all positive aspects were deleted (such as Kaisers activity as comedian) or also description of his books (they seem to be a bit like advertising? Please show me other entries where we see not exactly this style? Indeed, you try to present arts in a positive way if possible); even some cititations dealing with critics against his critical reviewers (Friedrich Naumann foundation, an original liberal foundation with excellent reputation, that was even critized by the German liberal journal Cicero after their comments agaainst Kaiser!) was put in a completely other context, so that it seemed that all three references were instances of criticim against Kaiser (!) ^[1] Even young liberals (of the same party, FDP, the foundation is) critized the statements of the foundation (see twitter entry ^[2] on this page) Prinzvonzavelstein (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can really not believe this. This is not neutral, this is very bad, bad, ill-natured difaming. Most evil aspect: even the Friedrich Naumann foundation judged Kaiser in its Twitter entry "only" as "right-populist" ^[3] The Wikipedia comment, though, spoke of "right extremist" (!) Dear people of Wikipedia, is THIS kind of difamation really the style you want to have in Wikipedia? I request an official wikipedia ombudsperson to validate this completely wrong behaviour. Prinzvonzavelstein (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I can not follow the logic why this entry should be deleted. Because the German one was deleted? I requested for the unblocking of the German entry on Kaiser with the motivation that these days the discussion Gunnar Kaiser has co-initiated in Germany for a liberal and pluralistic discussion is essential for democratic structures.

Prinzvonzavelstein (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia should avoid political bias. Kaiser is controversial and he is being pushed into the right corner, politically. Yet, primarily, he is an author, his novel has been published in many translations, an intellectual, a very influential blogger, mentioned and discussed also in mainstream media. This should be the main focus. What is happening here and the changes to the article show too much POV and political interest, this is partly understandable in the political situation in Germany, but much less in the English speaking world where Kaiser would be just regarded as a conservative, a quite liberal Republican. I have followed the decision in the German WP, there are many articles in WP with less justification about less remarkable personalities. Let us beware of instrumentalizing this encyclopedia for political ends, and from downsizing and distorting people just for their political views, for example by eradicating the novel of a writer plus reception from his bio.Gabel1960 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a comidian. His "show" was infront of 10 People. He is not a writer. He is nearly 50 years old and wrote just one single book a few months ago. He is not a journalist. He is a very controversial YouTuber out of an extrem right bubble.

Thats the only thing he is known for. 1 Book = not notabl, 5 articles in newspaper = no journalist = not notabl, a "show" with 10 people in the audiance = not notabl. The only stuff witch is a bit notabl is highly controversial you tube stuff. Thats why his German home Wikipedia deleted his the page just in 2020 4 times! And finaly locked it. Not notabl at all. DELET Dcddiegxo1e3d (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2020 (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.