Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieter Fleig

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Fleig

Dieter Fleig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I spent about an hour today looking for information about this author that would meet the our notability criteria for him, and failed. I did find a couple of mailing lists mentioning a minor court case about copyright & a critique of his accuracy in the case of one dog breed, but that was all. The source in the article for saying 'he became more widely known' is one of his books (self-published in Germany). The lead says that he is "an acknowledged international expert" but the source for that is the front page of a publishing house (which doesn't mention him).

talk) 12:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

[BOOK] Bull Terrier D Fleig - 1996 - Kynos-Verl. Fleig Cited by 1 - Related articles - Web Search

[BOOK] Fighting Dog Breeds D Fleig, W Charlton - 1996 - TFH Publications Cited by 1 - Related articles - Web Search

[BOOK] Hunde helfen Menschen A Hornsby, D Fleig - 2000 - Kynos-Verl. Cited by 2 - Related articles - Web Search

[BOOK] Das Grosse Bull Terrier Buch D Fleig - 1997 - Kynos-Verl. Cited by 1 - Related articles - Web Search

Green Squares (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that shows notability.
talk) 09:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
When an editor is biased, they will never see the truth -:) Green Squares (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am the author of the "more widely known" phrasing, and actually of most of the real content of this article. The article was created by Green Squares, obviously for the express purpose of quoting it on
    Talk:Pugnaces Britanniae
    as proof that dog specialist "Dr. Fleig" must be right when he writes about Britain's Roman history:
Through
ancient breeds as the progenitors of their modern era's counterparts [...]. [1]
This became necessary because what Fleig wrote on the topic is simply pseudohistory copied from other dog books, and Green Squares had little more to offer than the assertion that Fleig "has written many books on dogs, I trust his research."
When I researched Fleig for the article I had the same problem described by Dougweller, even though being a German gives me an obvious advantage in this case. Initially I was under the impression that Fleig was being used as an expert by the
Bundesgerichtshof
, but it turned out that he was merely cited by the side arguing against restrictions on attack dogs. "More widely known" is based on my original research: From what I saw in forum posts and other unreliable online sources, it seems that many dog owners who were afraid of having to give away their dog saw him as a kind of leader figure. I found no only one piece of evidence that any third party has ever written about Fleig in a reliable source. His most controversial book was probably not translated into English; I would translate the title as The Big Attack Dog Lie: Germany … Your Politicians. This was a collection of texts by various authors, one of which initially managed to stop the distribution of the book through an injunction. But I could find no citable reference to the court order, either. Not from the court, not from the press, not from the publisher.
As to his books being self-published: It seems that the translations appeared with various publishers. While I am sure that some of these are not reputable (e.g. the one that printed the "Gratius Falsius" nonsense with the incredibly pure grammar), the list includes a book that appeared with Macmillan. But even if all books had appeared with mainstream publishers, that would still not be enough to satisfy
WP:AUTHOR
.
I am not !voting yet because I still hope that someone finds better sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, finally here is something from a reliable source, apparently a summary of a TV programme that appeared on the regional German network MDR (my translation):
Dr. Dieter Fleig is author and publisher of dog books. As a dog expert he is often consulted at trials when attack dogs have seriously injured humans. He sees the problem on the dog owners' side.
"It is absolutely necessary to intervene against the misuse of dogs; there are irresponsible dog owners, especially in certain social strata, who misuse the dog as a status symbol and thereby try to upvalue their personality. In my opinion the authorities have every legal basis to interfere in cases of dog abuse and ban the dog owners in question permanently from keeping dogs. This possibility is by far underused." [2]
That's still not enough for
WP:AUTHOR. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Have you ever heard of
WP:AUTHOR which doesn't say anything about the number of books published. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Dieter is a very common first name for Germans of this generation. The club with 129 members is a fan club of an obscure music group from South Tyrol. The reporting about its statutory annual meeting is the kind of news report of which there are several every day in this local paper (it used to be my local paper) – because it makes the subscribers happy to read their acquaintances' names in the paper. The club's seat is in Lahr, 360 kilometres from the seat of Dieter Fleig's publishing house. The homepage of Dieter Fleig, the president of the club, has been updated this year but contains no information about his death in 2001. [4] To summarise: I don't think this source is particularly relevant. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually mentioned three sources there. You think none of them are about the same Dieter Fleig?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first of them discusses an annual fan club meeting this year, 8 years after the death of our Dieter Fleig. Your second source is my MDR source that I quoted exhaustingly (as far as it concerns him; the rest is mostly similar opinions from other people) above. Your third source mentions Dieter Fleig, chief officer of the land surveying office of Sasbachwalden (population: 2600). In passing. Because he was present at the opening ceremony for 23 new building plots. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, fair enough. Two of those are about different Dieter Fleigs. So we've got one (1) arguably-reliable source (or marginally-reliable source) and a few people who cite him. (I didn't read your post before !voting, Hans; I sometimes don't read the preceding discussion, it helps me feel sure I've formed an objective view of my own.)

And then I'm stumped for sources.

I'm still going to go with weak keep because there's a source and he's an acknowledged expert, although I appreciate I'm stretching the

WP:GNG in doing so.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am tempted to !vote the same way. Not because of what our guidelines say; but I am sure that if there was any reasonable way to formulate our guidelines so that they include this kind of person while excluding the self-promoters we want to exclude, then they would. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that of course that would then include a lot of authors in hobby fields -- as you suggest, it would require a change in our guidelines. And there would be a spillover to other areas of biography. I think it would be a pretty big change in our guidelines.
talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it wouldn't need a change in the guidelines, just a local consensus to suspend a guideline in this particular case. That local consensus would not have the force of precedent because of
WP:OCE — and it could certainly be challenged and overruled, either now or at some later stage.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: TFH Publications is one of the largest dog publishers in the world. In the preamble of the Dieter Fleig's books published by TFH Publications, they recognize him as an International Expert. Green Squares (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided a translation of S Marshall's MDR source mentioning court cases above. [5] --Hans Adler (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar. Concerning Green Squares' comment just above, a publisher touting their own author adds nothing towards any of the notability criteria. Wareh (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dougweller. This article doesn't satisfy
    NPOV text ("he tells the whole truth about the ancient breeds") which the original editor seems intent on replacing every time it's removed. JiveTalkinChoirBoy (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No! He is telling the truth, I swear! He knows more about dogs than anybody else. And I can prove it because he even uses citations! I have never seen such sophixtitated stuff before! [6] --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the subject of this BLP is not covered in any depth by any reliable source...anywhere.
    talk) 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually, he died in 2001, and my version of the article said that. I had not realised that among all the other stupidities Green Squares had revived him! [7] While the source for the exact date of his death was technically unreliable (a forum post by his adoptive daughter), I suppose the "about" page of the publishing house which he founded is reliable: "Auch nach dem Tod unserer Gründer Dr. Dieter und Helga Fleig..." [8], or in English: "Even after the death of our founders Dr. Dieter and Helga Fleig...'". So it's not actually a BLP article. This doesn't make your argument less valid, of course. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, when the
wiki-mob takes over, even the enlightened cannot challenge them. This is a definite weakness of Wikipedia. Admins, who are paid nothing are usually worth what you pay them... Illegitimi non carborundum. Green Squares (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well since i'm a member of an incohate mob: "You're a small-minded little person aren't you
talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, an inchoate mob of
hablo. 07:35, 13 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dieter_Fleig&oldid=1137786515"