Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer Buchmann

: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. I'm sorry Prof. Buchmann but there is a clear consensus to delete this article. Please don't take offense to this. As it has already been mentioned, there are some truly despicable people with articles and there are some amazing people without articles or whose articles have been deleted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

=[[Rainer Buchmann]]=

:{{la|Rainer Buchmann}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Rainer Buchmann}})

Subject may not have enduring notability to be included in an encyclopedia; main author User:Prof. Buchmann (talk) may have conflict of interest; author objects to proposed deletion. Zzarch (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as unsourced BLP. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Even though subject has published research, there needs to be some secondary coverage of his work. See WP:42. Also, sources? I see none to WP:NOTE. Phearson (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete We have a mechanism for evaluating scientists and scholars who have not received secondary coverage - it is WP:ACADEMIC, which evaluates the person's contributions to the field based in part on how often their work is cited by others. In this case, Dr. Buchmann's work is not cited enough to establish him as a leader in his field, and his academic positions do not meet the requirements either. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actual notability not asserted. JFW | T@lk 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC. ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like a rather unaccomplished (for the standards of wikipedia) dentist and a spam article with a ton of studies link but not matter to the article =(.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:Since I am not aware whether my contributions in the "talk" section have been noticed, I add them to the "deletion" discussion

:1. Nomination: Second- or third-party nominations frequently come from politics, industry, associations or societies with strong interests (economic, strategic) into the nominated person. My achievements and merits in periodontology over the last 2 decades are resulting from independent scientific research. With the W:D. Miller Award the research was honored in Germany. My scientific paperwork became rapidly published by notable U.S. publishers (see references).

:2. Conflict of interest: Scientific independence is an essential setting for creative research. My article encourages independency in life, career and research as the best principle for lifetime achievements.

:3. Notability: At prior, I will not interfere with Wikipedias regulations for notability. If people living an extrordinary life are not worthy becoming designated for nomination, I will surrender. Accepting my accomplishments in life (4 daughters), career (5 universities, Interim Director in Muenster, Germany) and research (refer to publications and 2 german textbooks), Wikipedia will honor independency, creativity and engagement.

:From this points you may reconsider the nomination and the proposed deletion of the article.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

::I hope you don't take offense to this nomination for deletion. Wikipedia has a fairly objective standard for article inclusion, and it does not attempt to judge the subject of an article positively or negatively. Some truly awful people have articles on Wikipedia, after all. You stated, "If people living an extrordinary life are not worthy becoming designated for nomination, I will surrender." That is indeed the case. The basic standard for determining a subject's notability (in other words, whether a subject merits inclusion) is coverage. Do reliable sources discuss the subject at length in a meaningful manner? It's possible for a person or thing to be very important but be relatively unknown. In those cases, Wikipedia can't have an article about it, for practical reasons. This encyclopedia, like every encyclopedia, is an aggregate of data. It can only provide information drawn from other sources. It does not introduce new information. That can be done by magazines, newspapers, books, TV shows, radio, other web sites, etc. Once published in such a manner, then that information can be used to have an article here. That is the only way for the information here to be even halfway credible. So please, don't take this badly, it's not a criticism of yourself, just possibly a reflection of the fact that what you've done has been low profile. -- Atama頭 21:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

:::I am thankful for your compassionated reply!

:::From your explanations I deduct that an article in Wikipedia America - is this correct? - has to be validated with informations from external reliable sources like magazines, newspapers, web sites etc. with the U.S.. However, if Wikipedia gets entries only from the english web, predominantly within the United States, it will not be surprising that you won’t find enough coverage since my current work and living environment is Europe. Then I understand that achievements allowing coverage in Wikipedia Europe, esp. single european countries, do not enable an article in Wikipedia America.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

::::First of all, this is the English Wikipedia, not Wikipedia America—sources are not evaluated based on their geographic locations. Secondly, it is my understanding that notability can and often is established by non-English sources, although some coverage by English sources is ideal. Nonetheless, while I do not wish to devalue your work, I feel that there is insufficient evidence in either English or non-English sources to establish why an article on you fits the inclusion standards of Wikipedia. If you can provide sources to the contrary, please do so; it would be appreciated. Zzarch (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I now condensed my article into a brief and modest entry. Due to rapid development and changes of the web in the last decade, achievements before the millennium are not available on the web or have been deleted with multiple updates of sites. If appreciated, I will further add certifications and letters of references as additional sources to this article.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Hold. According to wikipedias inclusion criteria WP:PROF the author meets points 1, 2 and 7:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources: See current entries in PubMed or in the articles history from Jan 12, 2012.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: W.D. Miller Award 1998, the highest possible honor for german research scientists in that decade.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: Textbook Patientengerechte Parodontologie, published by the renowned Thieme Medical Publishers Group.--Prof. Buchmann (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

: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.