Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rothammel

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 keep and move to Karl Rothammel. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothammel

the article is without purpose. Its hard to tell if it is about the author or a single book. "Karl Rothammel" pulls up 1,620 pages. Karl Rothammel shows 7 books, none of which come close to the ISBN listed on the article. John Vandenberg 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ISBNs are not 100% reliable. This article could be considered for a speedy delete, but seeing as its at afd, we can give it some time to see if a proper article can be built. Bwithh 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The correct ISBN has been found. John Vandenberg 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article provides insufficient content to say what this subject is, and why it is significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Essentially, what we see now on the article's page is the only contribution made by its original author. So, if we can find anything worthwhile, can we edit the article during the AfD to give it a direction? That's what I'll try to do, time permitting, unless I hear objections here. Keesiewonder 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Assuming I've figured out what this article "should" be about IMO. Can we rename the article "Karl Rothammel" during the AfD or must that happen later? I've made some tiny edits; will return to this task time permitting. Keesiewonder 11:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We can add to the article, but renaming it will break links, and is jumping the gun, as the Afd may decide that the topic isnt worth an article. A search on de.wikipedia.org lists this book as a reference 7 times, but it is not used as a reference on en.wikipedia.org. The book and the man both have decent google hits, so I think it could become a stub (here is a translated bio). I'm wondering if it is actually the book that is notable (in which case this article should be renamed to Antennenbuch), in which case the author bio can go on the book's article. John Vandenberg 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the book seems insufficiently notable. An article about Karl Rothammel would be fine, and this book can be mentioned there. --Ezeu 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article about Karl Rothammel would be fine (and I agree) why can't that article be here, and hopefully renamed from Rothammel to Karl Rothammel pending a successful Keep? Keesiewonder 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is about the book, not the man. What I mean is that the article should be about the man, and the book should be mentioned in that article. --Ezeu 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone familiar with the book is available to write about it. There's no article about the man in the German WP. However Karl Rothammel's Antennenbuch is in the reference list of de:Antennendiagramm. The German article is said to have an English equivalent at Radiation pattern. However the latter does not cite Rothammel's book. I'm not sure we would just add Rothammel's book as a reference on the English article without knowing more about its content. So, just Delete, without prejudice against re-creation in case someone familiar with it can write it up. Since there's no English translation available, it's not certain that this book is notable enough for the English WP. EdJohnston 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had most of those thoughts too - when I voted for Strong Keep, it was hoping that people/portals who care about the article would come forth and make it worth keeping since my findings were that in its field, it is worth keeping and is notable and verifiable (if the article is renamed to Karl Rothammel). The people who best know about this material don't seem to have appeared yet. So, I can also be a neutral on this one. AfD's are not the time for article improvement drives if proponents aren't even present (IMO)! Keesiewonder 11:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Red mutton" in the page is a machine translation of the surname Rothammel: ref a German to English dictionary. Contract this page down to a routine reference note and put that ref note in Antenna (radio). Then keep (as a page about the man Rothammel) or delete according to how notable Rothammel's radio and other work is. Anthony Appleyard 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the machine translation (my mistake). John Vandenberg 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the Rothammel book reference into Antenna (radio). Anthony Appleyard 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Keesiewonder has put into Rothammel matter about Rothammel's life story, not merely about the book. Anthony Appleyard 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks a lot better now thanks to everyone involved in the Afd. Im still not 100% sure the man is notable, but I would be happy for a keep or no consensus outcome. John Vandenberg 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions.
If this is kept, it must be moved to Karl Rothammel, but other than that I have no opinion. Bearcat 23:39, 15 January 2007 (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.