Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Dietrich

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.

Christine Dietrich

Christine Dietrich (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)

Article subject requests deletion. VRT Ticket 2022020410009457. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a review of Google News shows she's been consistently covered from 2011-2021 by Swiss news sources over her views.[1][2][3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as above. These articles are all sigcov - they're completely about her and her actions. I can see why she'd want to have this article removed. Unfortunately for her, there's no
  WP:BLP1E argument here either; both the coverage and her actions are repeated. I've added the sources from Morbidthoughts' comment to the article, except for the BaZ article, which I'm paywalled out of. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep If I search her name with
  WP:GNG. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment -- This has the fell of an ATTACK article, written by someone trying to whip up hatred against someone whose views they disapprove of. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I'm the subject of this article and as I already tried to explain to Malo95 I've nothing to do with this PI-platform for more than 10 years now and by the way there was no single text I wrote there that was in any ways against the law. I clearly distanced myself from this blog. But until now - over 10 years later! - I'm still burning on the same stakes, because people (like you?) keep the fire still burning, instead of finally leave me in peace. I accidentally found this Wikipedia article as I'm checking my name on Google search from time to time. I'm not used to write as an Wikipedia author, I'm not familiar with all this codes and as you might could know English is a foreign language for me. I'm just trying to defend myself as a human being. As for Rosch/Ritter you could mention there were verdicts of difamation. They tried to turn an old and cold story into a new and hot one - with nothing new at all in fact. A bit a diffenent view on what happened was published in the Weltwoche mentioned here: https://weltwoche.ch/story/hexenjagd-zu-basel/ I'd really appreciate if you could finally delete the unnessecary Wikipedia entry about me as it is mainly based on false accusations. If you don't, you could at least mention my doctoral thesis about Asylum published in 2008 at Kohlhammer publishing in the Series about Old an New Testament studies. https://books.google.ch/books/about/Asyl.html?id=mBfceMy-jq8C&redir_esc=y. It's a compearing research about legal texts in the biblical writings compared with texts from ancient Greece ancieant Orient, Rome and Egypt as well as later reception in church asylum. Maybe surprising for you I'm mentioning the practice of asylum in a positive way. PChdi1 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC+1)
  • Hi @Chdi1:, please don't post the same thing on two pages, as in here and on the talk page of this page. It makes it hard to keep relevant discussions together. Also, please sign your posts like this, with four tildes, so it's easier for people to reply to you: ~~~~ -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chdi1 About my question originally posted on the Talk page of this page, no, there is no malice intended there. I'm not sure why you see any, since what I'm offering to do is to add additional information to this article that is about you, but not about the controversies you've been involved in. It's going to be harder for us to find that kind of thing, because of course "someone says something offensive, people respond!" is going to generate more buzz and higher google results than "someone does something unobjectionable". I can indeed add a bit on your thesis. For the verdicts of defamation, I don't think we can add that unless it's published somewhere, though another editor might be able to correct me on this. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- As I already mentioned I beg your pardon for not being familiar wîth the ruleas of quotation on Wikipedia and I don't think I will comment any more. I still think this article about me (a.k.a. her) has to be deleted because it contains wrong information and as I read in the terms and conditions writig wrong things and "tabloid" information about a living person is not allowed on this platform. See, I always thought Wikipedia was some sort of encyclopedia. Now it seems it's just a collection of informations (no matter if true or false) published in newspapers (and only of those free of charge). Other important facts like a verdict against the author of the most aggressive articles stay unemtioned, because only published "truth" and what "Editors" think is of any importance here. I'm just a subject, and there are no means, I can do something about it. Please, delete this article. I'm not intending to add any more comments. -- Chdi1 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC+1)

Comment

WP:PUBLICFIGURE section of BLP policy includes a link to the public figure article, which discusses someone "who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society". Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep clear pass of GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any factual errors obviously should be corrected, however the coverage establishes that the topic meets
  WP:GNG and the subject has held roles as a public figure. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:42, 12 February 2022 (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.