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. Even the one "grudging keep" concedes that sources are lacking. Can be recreated if and when they are found. Sandstein 08:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Retzbach[edit]

Roman Retzbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

declined at draft and moved by creator to main space, no in-depth coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article seems to lack any text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article's creator has blanked the page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Scant evidence that anybody has taken notice of his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF. He's written enough books that WP:NAUTHOR is plausible, but we'd need reviews in reliable sources for that, and I didn't find any (there could be some in German that I'm missing, and I'll watch the discussion in case someone finds them). No other sign of impact. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to draftify, see below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: On German WP the article hasn’t been published, yet, but the answerers (including me) on the check for relevance rather don’t see him relevant according to German WP relevance criteria, see de:Wikipedia:Relevanzcheck#Roman_Retzbach. Mahlzahn (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ad the missing 3 non-fiction books. Please give me the time! So thanks!--YvesMe (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Container for advertising weblinks for a webshop. Delete. --Brotfried (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify it again please, Brotfried - the links are all ok! Thanks! YvesMe (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There*re now 5 non-fiction books listed, published in another publishing house. YvesMe (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: YvesMe, your claim above about no prior involvement is not consistent with the history of both the article and this AfD page. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Roman_Retzbach YvesMe (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The original draft instance of the article created by Future-Institute (now blocked) was declined and edited by other accounts [1]. The present instance appears to have been created from the eventual state of that draft, but has been created in mainspace without the original attribution history; if this article survives this AfD, that would be a licensing breach requiring a history merge? AllyD (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on WP:COPYVIO: Part of the present article and the instance at User:YvesMe/Roman_Retzbach are copied from this site where it is marked as being under copyright. AllyD (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grudging keep (invited by the bot) Regarding provided references, fails WP:notability but IMO they are likely to exist and an article on him should probably exist based on the scale of his public work and what he has done. Lacking independent sources and the type of text content that would arise from them. The whole approach to creating this has been pretty bad. Overall, it looks promotional. And what the heck is search results doing in the article listed as sources? Search resultsd isn't "sources", it's a way to help the article editor to find sources amongst all of the non-sources that turn up in such a search. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of the 4 non-fiction books by public libraries

The books are published and can be found in various universities and libraries, e.g. Württembergische Landesbibliothek

https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1610053966 https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1627975527 https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr571624960 https://wlb.ibs-bw.de/aDISWeb/app?service=direct/0/Home/$DirectLink&sp=SOPAC00&sp=SAKSWB-IdNr1623742684 YvesMe (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal

I'm a student in education and beginning biographer. I've also a German mentor, but unlucky no English mentor. Can we put please the article again to draft, after I understand it is not ready? I was working in a draft and wanted only to do a test. I put the article again to draft, but then it was put back. So why we can't agree I work again on the article and take time, and then I think it is ready, I inform you (all) before publishing again. I see and learned now how to work here and got my hard lection as tough training to accept your work and do it next time better.YvesMe (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, with the provision that the article will go through Articles for Creation before moving to mainspace. Notability has not been demonstrated (and I remain skeptical), but it is plausible, and there is an editor who is willing to work on the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/draftify: I am concerned that this article appears to have been created at the behest of a World Future Society to place biographies of their principal members here, also at the extent of collusive involvement of the subject in the placing of this article (as evidenced in the text on the subject's website, giving permission to a specific editor here to use the copyright material, which is far from a CC-by-SA license) and in the use of processes here (RfC, Dispute Resolution) to attempt to defeat this ongoing AfD, also consuming yet more volunteer effort. The present article is effectively a CV with list of publications which does not in itself confer notability, a notability which I am not seeing demonstrated in sources. All of these factors would lead me to propose its deletion. However, if there is a growing consensus for this to be returned to draft, then I think it should be the former attributed version currently at User:YvesMe/Roman_Retzbach rather than the mainspace instance, and it should immediately be shorn of the WP:COPYVIO content replicated from the subject's website, before further development towards any future second pass through AfC. I am also concerned that despite all that has been said, I am still not seeing a clear disclosure declaration of the involvement of the editor who put this in mainspace and those in the World Future Society? AllyD (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! YvesMe (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal

So put an index lock on the side so that the deletion problem is solved.YvesMe (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources at all. No evidence that the subject has ever done anything to make himself notable.   Maproom (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2020 (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.