Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herwig Zahorka

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 no consensus‎. I don't think that the discussion would change significantly with a final relist so I'm closing this now as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herwig Zahorka

Herwig Zahorka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a memorial written by a family member, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  03:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Czech Republic, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- 5 books, 250 articles and a decoration by Germany suggest notability. I agree COI is an issue, but should not be decisive. This makes me wonder how comprehensive nom's investigation was. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm willing to change my position but I didn't think quantity of work determined if a subject is notable. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Article is poorly-written, but can be cleaned up if anyone is available to do so. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of editing has happened in this article since its nomination and a review of the article and its sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Changing my position based on the changes that have been made to the article. I'd like to see more references in the article before changing to keep. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 28 December 2023 (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.