Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Germany. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Germany|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Germany. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Germany related AfDs

Scan for Germany related Prods
Scan for Germany related TfDs

Germany

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. A search for sources found 4 short mentions in google news hits. A keep !voter in AfD claimed there were sources, I did not find any. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Europe. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is SIGCOV in this Taylor & Francis book, Urban Heritage in Europe Economic and Social Revival: [1], and I'm finding other hits on Google Books. Have not yet checked JStOR. Seems like the article has encyclopedic value. I'm waiting on !voting until after deeper examination of sources in a more thorough BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think it has the very minimum notability for keep per Netherzone. — Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 00:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Cuba. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To repeat what I said last time. Significant cultural network. Enough online (and print) sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some online sources? Being significant does not equate to being automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article and network It clearly has use value and encyclopedic value for our readership. In addition to the Google Books source of independent secondary sigcov in my comment above there is also this book: Anderson, Anne. Art Nouveau Architecture. United Kingdom, Crowood, 2020 [2] Also the Wikipedia Library finds these: A wealth of nouveau riches. (2004). Building Design, , 23. Retrieved from [3]; and this: Hoelterhoff, M. (2003, Oct 10). Old architecture is nouveau again. Wall Street Journal Retrieved from [4]. Not sure how useful these are, but I've also found these in a quick online search: The Council of Europe: [5], Transromanica, The Romanesque Routes of European Heritage: [6]; the city of Riga has this: [7]; Europeana has this story: [8], Musée de L'École de Nancy: [9]; International Center for Black Se Studies: [10]. More as well found online if you remove the diacritic é and replace it with an "e" without the accent. I have no hesitation in finding that the international cultural network meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple improvements (and associated independent sources) to the current article so it no longer has just one source. The article can continue to be improved by the sources above if it is retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, History, and Travel and tourism. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TravelPerk

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

Promotinal routine coverage sources only about seed fund raising and similar event-based news. Not meeting NCORP Taking off shortly (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Travel and tourism, Germany, Spain, England, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Beckmann

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

Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Germany, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.

Also he is the first person, who found a stable nitrene and published an article about that, which is a huge deal in this field. ScienceBecky (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Knopf

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

Bar the dartsn.de page, SIGCOV is lacking here and so fails WP:GNG. Canary757 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Germany. Canary757 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrov

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater. Fails WP:NSKATE; no international senior-level medals, no national championships wins. On-line searches yield nothing beyond databases, scores, or a passing mention in articles detailing her previous skating partner, who went on to have more success than she did. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Salomea Schweppenhäuser

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

This person is not notable as such, only as a distant relative of the British royal family (WP:NOTINHERITED). Marcelus (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marcelus (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by any stretch of the imagination.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband's article or delete, no evidence of notability. —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to her husband's article. I have found that there is coverage in books such as Die vergoldeten Bräute - wie Herrscherhäuser und Finanzimperien entstanden (1981) and Das Kommandierte Wunder - Deutschlands Weg im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert (1959), the index of which indicates that "Schweppenhäuser, Maria Salome" is discussed on 2 pages. Both these only have snippet views on Google Books. This book “Der” letzte deutsche Fürst von Hanau-Lichtenberg Landgraf Ludwig IX. von Hessen-Darmstadt, ein Ahnherr Kaiser Wilhelms II. ein deutsches Fürstenleben (1890), says that Maria Salomea went to Warsaw as an attendant of Princess Caroline, and married after Princess Caroline's death there. The books included in this article are not accessible to me. It is difficult to tell without access to these books how much is written about Maria Salomea and what she did in her life as court attendant, wife, mother and widow. There may also be coverage in Polish, given that she lived in Poland for much of her life. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen; She is quite often mentioned in literature because her granddaughter married the Prince of Hesse, and their descendants sat on many royal thrones across Europe. That’s all. In Polish sources, if she appears at all, it is only as the wife of Fryderyk Karol Emanuel Hauke and the progenitor of the distinguished Hauke family. I even checked her obituary in Kurier Warszawski, and she was mentioned only as a widow, a good mother, and a grandmother. She was not a philanthropist, did not engage in social activities—she was a wealthy bourgeois woman like many others, related to many distinguished individuals. Marcelus (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus It's good to know that her obituary has been seen. However, if there were significant coverage of her, for whatever reason, then she could meet WP:GNG. I don't see that it matters if she received coverage because of her royal descendants - if people wrote enough about her, that's all that matters. As I said, I don't know without access to the books, hence my Weak keep or Redirect. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Super 6 Baseball rosters

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

The rosters of this tournament are not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:NSPORT / WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Baseball, and Europe. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super 6 Baseball and Softball as an alternative to deletion. C 679 07:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cloudz679. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Matthai

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

Falling short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics Cinder painter (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think his citation count is probably just about enough for WP:NPROF#C1, with an h-index of 43 and first authorship on quite a few highly cited papers. ~~His position as Chair of Reservoir Engineering at the University of Melbourne is probably also enough for WP:NPROF#C5.~~ Not the strongest NPROF pass (although for some reason his university profile is down and I'm having trouble checking for any potential pass on the other criteria), but I think it's enough. MCE89 (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI that's not a "named chair" and so wouldn't count towards C5. JoelleJay (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah looks like you're right, my apologies! Not sure why I'd assumed it would be — now that I've found his archived UniMelb profile it definitely isn't a named chair. Will strike that part. MCE89 (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Elitzur

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

WP:BLP1E - this person is not notable except for their conviction. WP:CRIMINAL applies. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Israel, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve article. WP:CRIMINAL states that criminals need not have separate WP pages *except* for when "[t]he motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This subject appears to fit into the above exception; Elitzur is mentioned in Times of Israel, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, JTA, Middle East Monitor and Yedioth Ahronoth (Israel's largest newspaper). A film has also been made about the subject. Hence, no reason for deletion. Eelipe (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to Killing of Sael Jabara a-Shatiya (he was convicted for manslaughter not murder). There is a lot of coverage of the event, passing WP:NEVENT, but with the way is covered it might make sense to keep it on the perp. It is a poor stub and should not have been made in this state but from a search it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Additionally, the page lacks context, making it unhelpful to users. gidonb (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~See WP:RUBBISH. Article being poorly written is not an AfD reason. Eelipe (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Eelipe, could you point to one specific opinion to which this might be relevant? Both users who consider the article poor want to keep it, while both users advocating for deletion cite entirely different reasons! gidonb (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is about an Israeli settler who killed a Palestinian. It is covered by WP:ARBECR. Eelipe is not extendedconfirmed and therefore cannot participate. I have struck through their comments. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One murder doesn't make someone notable, and for all of the two lines of text, I don't see notability. There is only coverage about the event, nothing about the individual that would show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in some circumstances one murder can make someone notable. That he was on the run for 15 years is something. And if that's the complaint would it not make sense to rename it? The event itself passes NEVENT (given sustained coverage and depth of coverage + entire film about it). To my understanding that it is a stub is not a deletion reason - what shows notability is sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Spiegel

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

My WP:BEFORE turned up no decent sources with significant independent coverage - it seems to be almost entirely recycled press releases, passing mentions, interviews or items that the subject has written themselves. I therefore submit that notability is not established under WP:GNG and I don't think that any of the WP:SNG pertain in this case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Germany, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog. Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. To address the concerns raised in the nomination, I am actively improving the article by removing sources that lack sufficient independence or reliability. Additionally, I am researching and incorporating high-quality references that offer significant coverage of the subject from third-party, independent sources. To ensure the article adheres to a neutral point of view and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, I have already removed content that appeared promotional. Based on these ongoing improvements, I kindly request that you consider the revisions before making a final decision regarding the deletion of the article. Thank you.

Sergiomarcus (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergiomarcus great stuff, please do add them to the article, and they can be taken into account. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog Thank you. Sergiomarcus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the stub is still expanding. Let's wait another few days. Ping me if you think this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources found about this topic are PRs about their appointment as a CEO and some other routine interviews. I would be willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. AgusTates (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and move to user space. This is a first-time editor trying to lean how to create an article. Rather than delete their first effort at an article, it would be better to move this to their user space, so they could take their time and learn the process. — Maile (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm

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

Nominated on behalf of 46.132.74.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I contested this editor's WP:PROD nomination, and they then asked on my talk page how, as an unregistered user, they could start an AfD nomination. Their PROD rationale was The article was already deleted once over concerns of notability, and although this version is longer, it is still mostly unsourced and includes nothing that would make the topic obviously notable. I will give my own opinion separately. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article appears to be a translation of de:Isabelle Gräfin von Loë. The best sources I have located appear to be:

Gies, Gabi (2009-01-14). "Ein bewegtes Leben". Neue Ruhr Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2025-01-20.
"Gräfin Isabelle von Loe - Schloss Wissen". Blattus Martini - Kevelaerer Enzyclopädie. Retrieved 2025-01-20.

The first is a biography in a regional newspaper. The second appears to be a reprint from a biographical dictionary (Kevelaerer Persönlichkeiten by Evers and Willing). This is somewhat suggestive that a more thorough search could locate enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, although I'm not sure it's enough on its own. I mainly contested the PROD because the tag had previously been removed by another user, and because the article had been recreated after a prior PROD deletion. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see why someone might think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, since she lived a pretty impressive life. However, I can't find any sources (aside from a few passing mentions) other than the two Jfire has already identified, and I would say they are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. Tserton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that this article just needs to be improved by including more sources, she certainly did enough to warrant notability as another user mentioned. I do think that the wording and flow needs to be improved, but that's another topic. Perhaps just add the relevant banners instead of requesting deletion. Just the fact that "she was the longest lived royal European centenarian to have ever lived" makes me think that some more effort should be put in to save it. If there's a source for that, I don't see how it wouldn't meet the relevant standards. Laurelius (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it certainly needs work, but based on what is in there and sourced, and her extremely long life, she's easily notable. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out some fluffy language and added some royal connections like Marie Antoinette, the headless queen who was her distant-great-aunt. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very uncertain about this one. I think she would need to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, as she doesn't meet any WP:SNG. So, has there been significant coverage about her in reliable, secondary sources? The first source in this article apparently "describes in passing" some activities the author of that source undertook with her. That doesn't sound like significant coverage. The two sources that Jfire found are as much about her family and the castle as about her, and don't go into detail about her wartime activities, and they are also both very local. In the past, when articles about centenarians were brought to AfD, they were usually deleted unless there was significant, non-local coverage (so not just the local newspaper covering their 90th, 100th and 110th birthdays, for example), or if they met WP:ANYBIO. Examples of AfDs where the result was Keep are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lockett. I haven't found much here, although there was a paragraph about her in The Tatler [11] (included in the article Salm-Salm). I have found a source about her donating land to the German War Graves Commission [12], but that isn't significant coverage, it just confirms content in the article. I have tried to search in digitised German newspapers, and found only a notice of her husband's death and some social notes. I tend to think there is not enough to keep this in English Wikipedia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling someone would bring up the Tatler article. To spare people a click, it's a listicle that might well have been sourced from Wikipedia. 46.132.74.112 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as female figure. To the listed pages noting her passing there is also coverage: Für viele war sie eine zweite Mutter (German) in local journal Kevelaerer Blatt. Axisstroke (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but...that article is one of precisely two sources in existence that aren't passing mentions. Tserton (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel

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

A case of evidence versus opinion. Theoretical physicist who moved into econophysics, h-factor WOS 25, GS 26, no major awards. Physics work is solid but does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 -- nobody has argued it does. Originators argues that economics work is notable, despite lack of cites. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, econophysics is not mainstream economics so is not well cited. Notability tag (not by nom) and PROD (by nom). Editors responded with arguments in talk pages of why he is notable in their opinion, and added WP:Opinion to text. Both notability tag & PROD were removed with the argument "passes WP:NPROF#C1 on cites". I believe we always require evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of @Xxanthippe, Gunnar.Kaestle, Sniffadog, Moriwen, Ulubatli Hasan, and Closed Limelike Curves: Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here are my arguments why his work is notable:

The Solow Growth Model is notable.
Also the Solow residual is notable, indicating that the model is not complete. (Figure 6.4).
Finding a solution by identifying a third production factor energy as the missing link is notable as well.

Gunnar (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"After a detailed discussion of the scientific elements of energy and entropy, Kümmel comes to his main concern, the improvement of economic theory, and introduces energy as a new variable in economics on the basis of scientific results. The result is a model in which the economic production function depends on the factors capital, labor, energy and creativity. Kümmel tests the model using economic data from Germany, the USA and Japan. He concludes his book with the hope for a society that builds its future on reason and general ethical values. “The Second Law of Economics” is very convincing and it is to be hoped that it will help to bridge the deep rifts between the natural and social sciences." Book Review for The Second Law of Economics [13] Gunnar (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who works on a notable model is notable themselves. Writing one book, even one notable book, is not enough to meet our notability standards for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.

At least he has priority in finding a pretty good solution to the known problem. If this was a patent, the early bird would be notable. Gunnar (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel is one of the first scientists who introduced energy as factor of production analytically. Kümmel derived the LINEX production function that depends linearly on energy and exponentially on the ratios of capital, labor, and energy. The LINEX function is the first production function that explicitly models energy’s economic role of activating the capital stock. More specifically, it models the role of energy in increasing automation and in capacity utilization of industrial production. Kümmel derived the LINEX function in 1982, triggering a stream of research on energy as factor or production. Source of first publication: Kümmel, Reiner (1982). "The impact of energy on industrial growth". Energy. 7 (2). Elsevier: 189–203. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(82)90044-5. Retrieved 2025-01-20. Gunnar (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least 10 publications on GS with > 100 cites. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. All these papers are in ecological economics which is a high citation field, please see this link Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe, to expand on my citation conmment, in standard solid-state physics 10 papers cited more than 100 times is about what is expected for a good assistant professor coming up for tenure at a strong R1 university. This is different from, for instance, mathematics where citations are far lower, or HEP where they are far higher. A few papers with > 1000 cites is notable. His area of ecological economics is highly cited, from what I can see higher than solid-state physics. If we said that all Profs with > 10 papers cited > 100 times were notable, then almost every associate professor or higher at an R1 university in chemistry, materials science, physics, economics and a few more would pass R1. As has been discussed previously quite a few times at WT:NPROF, the concensus is that citations have to be considered in context for the field, not as absolute numbers.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although he did publish in Ecological Economics in 1989 (Energy as a factor of production and entropy as a pollution indicator in macroeconomic modelling [14]) and 1991 (Heat equivalents of noxious substances: a pollution indicator for environmental accounting [15]), I do not see this broad subject of sustainable economics as his home turf. It is more specialised: the macroeconomics effects in energy economics. Here, there are physicists and engineers that have updated their know-how in economics, and market people who took extra coaching in basic physics. While in the second half of the 18th century it took only a decade or so that the new subject of thermodynamics became generally accepted in the physical domain, I am still puzzled about that energy as a production factor is ignored by mainstream economics although we have seen dire effects on the economy during the oil price shocks in the 70s, the price explosion in 2008 which ended the Great Moderation and the energy shock after the COVID restart in 2021 and the effects of the Ukraine war in 2022. If the cost share theorem was true, the energy price shocks should have shown no significance. Reiner Kümmel provided arguments, that the assumptions of neoclassical economics are wrong in this case: How energy conversion drives economic growth far from the equilibrium of neoclassical economics (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/125008/pdf 2014). I assume this is a kind of agnotology, not in a sense that there is a malevolent lobby behind like in the case of Big Tobacco, but a kind of firm paradigma which is not easy to put aside. I only noticed once in an IMF-Report on Oil and the World Economy that the authors seemed worried. "For the contribution of oil to GDP, the main problem is that conventional production functions imply an equality of cost shares and output contributions of oil. This has led economists to conclude that, given its historically low cost share of around 3.5% for the U.S. economy, oil can never account for a massive output contraction, even with low elasticities of substitution between oil and other factors of production." (S. 14) And then they cite Kümmel, Ayres and some others to present counterarguments. --Gunnar (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work."

"Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."

"Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."

These caveats may be there to prevent identifying only cargo-cult science as notable. Thus, my suggestion is to have a closer look on the improved theory of economic growth with energy as third production factor. It is a tiny, focused subject but without doubt notable. "Growth theory, like much else in macroeconomics, was a product of the depression of the 1930s and of the war that finally ended it." Similarly, Kümmel's work started with the observations during the oil crises in the 70s. Gunnar (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hall, Charles; Lindenberger, Dietmar; Kümmel, Reiner; Kroeger, Timm; Eichhorn, Wolfgang (2001-08-01). "The Need to Reintegrate the Natural Sciences with Economics" (PDF). BioScience. 51 (8). Oxford University Press: 663–673. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0663:TNTRTN]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2025-01-21. I like this paper very much, not because of the mathematical explanation in the 2nd half, but because of the simple English and the Figures in the first half. Especially fig. 1a shows a basic model in economics: Goods and services flow in one direction (and are paid by households), while Land, Labor and Capital flow in the other direction (and are paid by firms). "This view represents, essentially, a perpetual motion machine" as all the goods and services (including capital borrowing and land lending) are circulated after processed or consumed and paid in a constantly spinning wheel. Therefore, figure 2 shows a more accurate model of how economies work. Everything is driven by an energy flow, while its quality is degraded (entropy is increasing). This is not my personal opinion only, but at least his 4 co-authors obviously agree to this interpretation: It is irresponsible to rely in our decision making on economic models, that contradict our reality. Reiner Kümmel has created a sound mathematical foundation by properly integrating energy into the macroeconomic theory. Gunnar (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to link to the article's talk page Talk:Reiner Kümmel#Notability of Academics as well as to the matching discussion at the Economics project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Notability of Reiner Kümmel. Gunnar (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wikipedia editor experience and I'm sure I'm breaking some rules here, but I found this article quite helpful in my research on how energy input and total factor productivity are related, particularly in regards to the energy crisis in 1973. I recommend that the article is kept. 165.91.13.227 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No rules were broken. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – if for no other reason than that the "keep" comments are utterly unconvincing, despite clear attempts to make them so. Most comments above revolve around the notability of the subject matter that he worked on (which no-one has suggested is not notable), not this person, and aside from that the traceable citation count, which in the absence of any other evidence is pretty meaningless. Even the not-too-many citations of his papers suggest notability of the topic, not of the author. The content of the article gives little that would make him notable outside of one narrow topic. There are also knowledgable editors here expressing opposition to "keep" without putting it in a separate bullet. —Quondum 23:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, nobody questions the notability of the subject matter, then why is he as the first person who pointed out that there is a problem with the growth model's math and developed a solution which shows a good fitting with measured data not notable as well? Gunnar (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is about on par with asking "Why is the sky pink?". Relate any arguments to WP:N. In particular, GNG requires significant coverage of the topic of the article (i.e. the person, not of a field to which they contributed). Einstein's notability is established by what is written about him, not by our opinion of his contributions. —Quondum 12:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you want to say by "Why is the sky pink?". Regarding you example of Einstein, that's a bad one, as you don't want to keep only the most noble noble prize laureats and kick out those which have been forgotten. I argue about fact that notability cannot only shown by a citation count but by other means as well. For me it is obvious that improving a theory from economics which disregards some basic laws of physics (reduce the energy input in your country's economy by 90 % and the economy will not shrink by only 5 %, as any kind of transportation, production of goods and food, operation of computers, etc does need energy) is notable. I believe Jeremy Rifkin thinks so as well: "In other words, 'energy' is the missing factor." [16] Gunnar (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany

Germany

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

TravelPerk

Jens Beckmann

Kevin Knopf

Silvia Dimitrov

Maria Salomea Schweppenhäuser

2018 Super 6 Baseball rosters

Stephan Matthai

Yehoshua Elitzur

Benjamin Spiegel

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm

Reiner Kümmel

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also