Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Downard-Wilke (2nd nomination)

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.

Axel Downard-Wilke

Axel Downard-Wilke (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)

Downard-Wilke does not meet our

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 08:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, based on encountering what I consider significant coverage in two profiles [1] (in this one he is rendered as "Wilke" rather than "Downard-Wilke") and [2]. This combined with the less significant but also more than trivial coverage across sources cited in the article leads me to consider the topic notable. I'm also perplexed by the OP's comment that this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. This article wasn't created or edited by its subject (who would be the "self" in self-promotion); the COIN case is about someone who knows Downard-Wilke interpersonally having contributed to the article. Downard-Wilke, who is disclosed to be Schwede66 on Wikipedia, has never edited this article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really want to go too deep into source debates for reasons stated in my comments below, but you might want to read my original nomination statement from the first AfD – certainly that first Stuff article you linked is not an independent source. It was written to promote this edit-a-thon to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stuff itself, which Downard-Wilke appears to have played some role in organising. This does call into question more broadly whether Stuff articles can be considered independent of Downard-Wilke.

  The apparent less significant but also more than trivial coverage you refer to I believe amounts to a

  notability bomb when carefully investigated – although there are many sources, none turn out to contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

It's not self-promotion but it is a prolific DYK contributor being asked to make an article about a prominent Wikipedian and get it on the front page. Obviously we don't know who did the asking. It all stinks, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Original AfD nominator here. I think this follow-up AfD is slightly premature. There is an evolving discussion underway at COIN, where Schwede66 has mentioned a cache of 50-odd potential sources for review. It would be better to take some time to properly go over these sources before going straight back to AfD. Plus, this way interested participants would not have to split their energy between content and conduct discussions, and so we can get all the facts right about the circumstances behind the article's creation (for example, I agree with Hydrangeans that calling it "self-promotion", given what we know right now, is tenuous because Schwede66 hasn't touched the article).

As it stands I would prefer this be suspended or closed procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination once other discussions have taken their course and Schwede66's sources been thoroughly reviewed. – Teratix ₵ 15:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Echoing the two previous comments. I feel this AFD is a bit rushed, and I don't see reasons why it may be labelled as self-promotion yet. AFA notability is concerned, the sub meets borderline notability IMO. X (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability is clearly determined by multiple reliable news articles on the subject from The Star and Stuff. Both outlets are reliable independent sources in New Zealand. Before anyone questions whether I have a CoI, I have met Axel once in an online Wikipedia meetup call, and all of my interactions with him have been on and about Wikipedia. However, outside of Wikipedia I have heard his name mentioned in several places related to urban planning in Christchurch. He is certainly a notable figure in this city, and I also consider him notable enough for a wikipedia article.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Teratix pointed out, the Stuff article is not an independent source. Not sure about The Star. wound theology◈ 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other Stuff articles that establish notability, particularly on the macron debate. Believe it or not that was newsworthy in NZ. When I tell people I edit Wikipedia, people ask me about that specific topic. Wilke was a fairly central figure in the coverage of that debate., as established by the sources. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- a prolific contributor surely has achieved enough notoriety to deserve an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk • contribs)
• Keep at this time - on the surface appears to just meet
  WP:GNG. This does seem like it is better to be reviewed at COIN in the first instance and improve things from there, and a renomination can be done after that process is complete. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep meets
  WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have now had a chance to properly review Schwede66's sources and they have changed my opinion on the matter – I believe there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources to keep the article. (Critically, at the time of my original AfD nomination I had not seen either of the sources I view as demonstrating notability). That is not to say it will not need significant attention (about 40% of its citations are to non-independent sources, suggesting in its current state
  undue weight
  may be placed on certain aspects), but it passes our basic notability test. As for the particular sources demonstrating notability:

• Although I do not believe the 2020 Stuff article is independent because it appears to have been written to promote an edit-a-thon on the company, on reflection I do not think this judgement of non-independence should necessarily extend to an article on a different issue written by different authors two years later, even if it is the same outlet. Although the article is chiefly about the macrons debate itself, there is some decent coverage of Downard-Wilke and his actions, enough to contribute to passing GNG/NBIO.
• I mentioned source 6, a piece from The Star about his regional council campaign, in my original AfD nomination as difficult to verify (unavailable online) but unlikely to contribute to notability given various reasonable inferences from its context of production. However, Schwede66 had a copy of the article and it turned out to be a bit more substantial than I expected, providing just enough depth and context I believe it contributes to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources appears to meet
  WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:51, 31 May 2024 (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.