Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Schrems

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max Schrems

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

I feel this article does not meet the Basic criteria for notability for people. Specifically, the only thing this person has done is launched a class action lawsuit against Facebook. The only major edit to the article is a single user. I have already proposed the article for deletion which was removed by this editor, claiming that google search results (for a common name) indicate notability, which goes against my understanding of Wikipedia's notability policy, so I am now bringing it to the AfD noticeboard. --Padenton (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template said it was all right to remove it providing an explanation was placed on the Talk page, which I did. Alongside the 340,000 hits on his name, the overwhelming majority on this individual (by page 10 they are still all on him), we can cite the multiple sources, including all the major news outlets and tech orientated websites, here at Slate for example. There's the two other wiki projects articles I mention, the German and the Danish. By no stretch of the imagination can this be regarded as a single issue article (and in fact there are two court cases pending, the CJEU case as well as the Vienna class action as the article lede makes clear). I'm not sure how viable the class action is, but I can assure the templater that the CJEU case is likely to be a landmark judgment if it is accepted. What is at issue here, the privacy issue, strikes at the very heart of the ongoing debate about public security in the face of terrorist attacks. Finally it's presently a stub and it's not unusual for stubs to be edited by a single user in the early days. If the templater feels the stub needs improvements, they are welcome to provide them.

Looking at the templater's contribution record I see a few edits stretching over the last three years, the last dozen or so related to Facebook. This would seem to be their first nomination for deletion. They are entitled to their 'feelings' of course, but I frankly find their intervention both vexatious and time-wasting. c1cada (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution record is irrelevant unless you are claiming I have done this in bad faith. I do not deny I came across this stub while looking through a few of the articles related to Facebook, how else would I have come across this article? It says here in Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper #3: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event". Again, the number of Google search results don't make a subject notable. A lot of Google search results are just spider websites that duplicate others. Then there's the fact that Google also includes results that are only partial matches. There's also a town in Austria called Schrems, it is also not a rare surname. 'Max' is short for 'Maximilian', the 3rd most common boy name in Austria, and quite popular elsewhere in the world. So your repeated claim that Google search results are all (or even mostly) about him is nowhere near likely. Furthermore, I admit I am skeptical that you have gone through and read every single link that you claim is about the subject. The future possibility of a landmark judgement if a case is accepted doesn't make it a landmark case before it is heard. Anyone can launch a lawsuit. And if it eventually became a landmark judgement, it would fit better in an article being named after the case itself (like the vast majority of legal articles on Wikipedia), not an article about a single person. Issues of privacy and public security in the face of terrorist attacks do not make one person notable. As for providing improvements to your stub, how would I do so, given that the only thing about Max Schrems is his involvement in this lawsuit which hasn't even begun? --Padenton (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I was suggesting was that perhaps you weren't very experienced in this kind of nomination. It's a fair point to make because whatever your beef about the encyclopaedic value of the article, the grounds absolutely can not be WP:NOTABILITY which starts with the bottom line: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" (observe by the way that is a relevant guideline I am quoting). Max Schrems has been multiply referenced in good quality secondary reliable sources and I provided primary sources in the external links as well. There's no question he's not notable. What you have done is move the gate posts with your "not a newspaper" concerns. Those aren't valid either. The German wikipedia had an article up on Schrems up for nearly a year before I made the article start in the English Wikipedia: old news thus. You may not have heard of Schrems before your recent 'look' at Facebook articles, but I damn well have (along with some 25,000 like-minded plaintiffs) and have been following the progress with interest. I don't believe I have more to contribute here, and I'll be surprised if you (genuiinely) have either. c1cada (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was previously in the news in 2011 for demanding and receiving his records from the company; I found a 2012 Forbes article and expanded the article backwards from the current lawsuits. Meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be a fine policy to have that anyone only mentioned in connection with Facebook is inherently not notable. However we seem to be stuck with a guideline that a topic is presumed notable if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and a policy that we should not have articles about low-profile living people only notable for one event. This guy is notable, is not low profile, and I count all this as more than one event. Thincat (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources available easily pass WP:BIO, and that there are several from 2012 and several from 2014 show sustained coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 21 February 2015 (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.