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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christl Ruth Vonholdt[edit]

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

Nomination repaired on behalf of Shivago12. Reason is: Hoax article. All English and German Articles listed here are self published. Articles purpose seems to promote her articles / books here. Entire editing history is for the single purpose to promote her German article, which was already noted for deletion. Pgallert (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Article is abysmal but this seems to be a notable individual of controversial views. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I would not go so far as the nominee in imputing a motive for having the article, she seems non-notable. She holds a doctorate in an unrelated field; having a doctorate does not render one notable. 3 of the books under publications she co-edited rather than wrote or co-wrote. The only books listed there that she wrote are the self-published second one (Selbstverlag) and her dissertation (on varicose veins, but in any event writing a dissertation and one self-published book does not make one an author). The first article is a translation on the website of a private anti-gay organization of an article that de.wikipedia states was published in a journal of another private anti-gay organization, and the other (other 2 on de.wikipedia, which adds one on transsexuality) was (were) published in a journal of the organization with which she is affiliated. Hence the articles are not peer-reviewed. This is not enough to satisfy the notability criteria as an academic or an author. And her position is director of an institute within a church or religious organization, so she is not notable for heading that, either. I do not find evidence in the de.wikipedia article of her having had sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources that she warrants an article. There are numerous footnotes there, but the vast majority are statements by her or by her organization or references to the law and legislative deliberations. There is one interview for a newspaper, reproduced by her organization here (and footnoted 2 different ways in the de.wikipedia article - same interview). This is by no means the substantial coverage required for general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. But why a hoax? Is there evidence any of this is unverifiable? Vrivers (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to look beyond the Google News search spoon-fed at the top of this discussion to find notability, with many reliable sources found such as these. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for putting these forward - they will be needed if the article is kept, because it badly needs more refs., and 2 of them (1 and 3) specifically report on her having appeared by invitation at a conference and the resulting outrage. However I still do not see the notability. That's exactly the purport of the coverage on the conference - whether she and the church institute she represents should be accorded this much respect. And (2) is from Mitteldeutsche Zeitung, which German Wikipedia portrays as very much a regional organ (southern Sachsen-Anhalt) and so I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. (One might reasonably say the same of Rheinische Merkur, where the one interview with her cited by the German Wikipedia article appeared.) Also the MZ article is about the Catholic church - it may be from their equivalent of the "god slot". Certainly limited in focus to religious ethics, hence she is being cited as an expert within a strictly religious context. I do not think this meets the threshhold for generally recognized expertise or for generally broad coverage in the press. The Marburg conference looks a bit like a "one event" flurry in the news. So my opinion stands: not sufficiently notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll work on the references some more tomorrow, but it is quite clear that she is notable, having been covered in a non-trivial manner in all of the major German newspapers. I personally believe her views are sickening and disgusting, but I can't argue about her notability. Silver seren^C 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is clearly notable but more ref. would be good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Phil Bridger. Dewritech (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (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.