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. - Mailer Diablo 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total rewrite needed, therefore delete. Most of the page is an advert for an essay from an essay mill, in truly horrendous prose. Sample:

"Reinard Opitz was never invited to an academic position or convened as chair holder [...] a 51 year old German egg-head who had (in the sense of J.W. Goethe) attempted striving to solve one of the still undetected mysteries of social sciences named genesis and prevention of fascism."

• Commentary: Beware of pickpockets, tricksters, and academic swindlers, whether they may have got a Ph.D. or not, name themselves today Leibniz or Keks [[1]]], tomorrow Nietzsche or Bahlsen. Moreover, please, look at [[2]], [[3]], and tell me whether this man should be a representative of the en-wikipedia-community any longer, or not; su, ma.beauty1atgmx.net 80.136.127.41 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page

Wolfgang Abendroth

"Dr.iur. Wolfgang Abendroth (1906-1985) was in fact as a Marxist scholar a good red herring, and that's why there is no reason at all either to fish him when stylising him [...]"

for the same reason. They have a certain comedy value, though.

Leibniz 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The articles themselves are junk, but a look at the links inside seem to show that these were both authors of many many books. Someone who could read german would be able to better analyze them. No vote for now. --Daniel Olsen 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the notability of Wolfgang Abendroth is actually pretty obvious judging from his article on the German Wikipedia and the hits I get for his name in an online library catalogue (held professorial chairs at several German universities, finally at Marburg; there are at least two festschrifts dedicated to him, one of them proceedings from a symposium in his name). Opitz (and especially his two-volume work Faschismus und Neofaschismus from 1988) seems to be somewhat important in left-wing German historiography. Regardless of the quality of the current articles, I can't see how these would be less valuable as subjects of articles than the thousands of insignificant baseball and cricket players we have. up+l+and 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about the notability of Abendroth. From the article, however, I got the opposite impression. Leibniz 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Opitz as a fine social scientist and intellectual. But, rewrite the article, this should be done! -- €pa 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a link to Reinhard Opitz in the German National Library Catalogue into the article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Total rewrite is fine by me. Dlyons493 Talk 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Total rewrite needed and therefore it should be "delete": The bulk of this article is a copyvio. The header was by one hand, it seems, and the body by another. The header struggles from non-native idiom, but the body is fairly useless as a recreation of the lead page/review of a book. The author deserves discussion, but the article is wretched. If anyone closes this as "no consensus" or "keep," I urge him or her to get in there and do some editing to at least remove the fishy chunk. Geogre 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio (now removed by User_talk:Dlyons493) concerns material attributed to Richard Albrecht, which I have nominated for vanity. Leibniz

• Keep: The Leibniz-spoors, Aug. 19, 2006, show a personal annihilation policy of Mr. Leibniz against these three entries: Wolfgang Abendroth, Richard Albrecht, and Reinhard Opitz - all of them German social scientist & left-wing scholars … M. Falke, Aug. 20, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: 80.136.97.247 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep and Rewrite. It is written in a decent amount on the German wikipedia, so we can definitely expand on the article in the English wikipedia. A total rewrite is needed for the article, and whoever's doing the rewrite should at least know a bit of German, as it seems like 90% of the 200,000+ Google hits on Reinhard Opitz that one could use for research are written in German or in other foreign languages. --Nishkid64 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strip it back to a stub if needed, and then get some German speakers to help. Also, really needs a few incoming links. StuffOfInterest 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The German article on Abendroth looks fine, and could be the basis for a total rewrite. No fishing of Marxist scholar red herrings over there, thankfully. The one on Opitz is not that great, and does not establish his academic notability that well, though he seems to have a cult. Leibniz 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Often the afd process can be quite helpful in drawing attention to an inadequate article and motivating constructive people to work on improving the it. Sounds like this is the case here. GBYork 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then, if we have some German speakers interested in dead Marxists, we can close. A problem that remains, though, is that not many people in WP are interested in dead Marxists (unlike baseball players and anime characters). What may happen is that the same crud that nobody here much likes gets reinserted by the same anons as before. Leibniz 11:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Abendroth. Keep Opitz If User:Dlyons493 feels able to rewrite, perhaps a look on these contributions might be useful: 1.1. Reinhard Opitz: Liberalismus - Faschismus - Integration; Edition in drei Bänden (Bd.1: Liberalismus - Integration, Bd.2: Faschismus; Bd.3: Die »Röhm-Affäre«). BdWi-Verlag, Marburg 2000, 1 450 pp.; 1.2. reviewed by Jean Cremet in: Jungle World 29. Maerz 2000 [[4]]; 2. Georg Biemann, Kinderbilder für einen Weggefährten: Zur Biographie des Publizisten and Politikwissenschaftlers Reinhard Opitz; in: Forum Wissenschaft, 1/1998, pp. 50-54 (a short biographical sketch); 3.1. Richard Albrecht, Reinhard Opitz´ These von der Bewußtseinsfalsifikation - 30 Jahre später; in: Topos. Internationale Beiträge zur dialektischen Theorie, Novembre 2005, No. 24, pp. 123-146; 3.2. the enlarged online-version, with English summary, is completely free of charge publ. by GRIN Verlag Munich, 2004 [[5]]; 3.3. the abridged version in: junge Welt, 26. Novembre 2004, pp. 10-11; 4.1. Richard Albrecht, „...denkt immer an den ´mittleren Funktionär´... Wolfgang Abendroth (2. Mai 1906 bis 15. September 1985); publ. by GRIN-Verlag Munich 2005, completely free of charge: [[6]]; 4.2. abridged printed version: Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (iwk), 4/2004, pp. 465-487; 4.3. second printed version: Wolfgang Abendroth für Einsteiger und Fortgeschrittene, ed. Friedrich-Martin Balzer. CD-Rom; 2nd, enlarged ed.; Bonn: Pahl-Rugenstein, 2006 [ISBN 3-89144-371-4]. Aug. 23, 2006, M. Eser

Keep Abendroth, an outstanding political scientist. He has been much more important than either Opitz or Albrecht, anyhow. -- €pa 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Abendroth was also respected by political opponents. His personal integrety is e. g. documented by beeing a member of the constitutional courts of the German states of Bremen (1949) and Hesse (1959-1963). It seems there is a rough consence on the notability of Abendroth and that the article should be improved on the basis of the German article. Therefore I would like to ask Leibniz to withdraw that the page is deleted. I have no account and sign with 4 tildes, which will be converted to my IP. 85.167.175.70 12:54, 25 August 2006 (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.