Deletion of Christian Gänshirt

Comment: I'm sorry I repeated the "Keep", I didn't think of this as a voting process. Please check "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google and see how many results come up. Please verify the data and references provided above to see if they justify notability or not. I assumed  is about the work, not the person
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: regarding the second argument given above: If architects spend years of their work life in a leading role (like project architect in this example) working on the making of an important building, why should this not be considered “Co-creation” in terms of ? What would then be the meaning of this term
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: It was certainly our mistake to use alternate accounts to provide information, and we totally understand your difficulties in trusting that information now. Being aware of that, we took great care to support all information with the necessary references for independent verification. Is there anything else we could do about that? In the discussion above we basically provided two arguments defending the notability of the subject as a Creative Professional . The first argument, which is probably the stronger one, is his book Tools for Ideas. Please verify the data provided above (more than 500 library holdings listed in Worldcat, 50 citations in Google Scholar, quite a few results for "gänshirt tools for ideas" on Google) to make your decision. You might also have a look at the footnotes of that page to find authors commenting on or discussing concepts of the book in some depth (see footnotes 18-22 for reviews in German, footnote 21 for one translated into English). The second argument touches on the more difficult question if the work of a project architect in a small, but important architecture office could be acknowledged as "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" in terms of . We are not sure about the standards Wikipedia applies in such a case. Should you decide to relist this AfD debate again, please provide some guidance on how to continue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: all four "keep" votes above come from the same single-purpose account that has done nothing aside from comment on this discussion. I do not believe the subject meets the notability criteria at . The idea that Tools for Ideas is a well-known work is simply not true. Google results are extremely sparse. It should also be noted that the Tools for Ideas page was created by another single-purpose account and is promotional in tone. Lastly, that the subject worked as a project architect and contributed to major projects does not establish notability through  - in any architecture firm there are many project architects that have a hand in many major works, yet few project architects have actually received the depth of coverage in secondary sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. This subject also has not. The numerous single-purpose accounts and promotional  pages surrounding him smells of a case of using Wikipedia for advertising, contrary to our policies on |neutral point of view and |what Wikipedia is not. Ganshirt himself made a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Christian_G%C3%A4nshirt few fledgling edits to Wikipedia mere days before Tools for Ideas was created by the SPA. I suspect a case of of self-promotion through a web of sockpuppets. Here is a list of SPAs (or near-SPAs) surrounding the subject that may be socks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:ARTSPAM||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT)

Comment: I think that by continuously commenting, and creating a new bullet point for every single comment, the '''Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goyah|above sockpuppet''' is really confusing this discussion and dissuading other people from contributing. The issue here is pretty cut-and-dry (i.e. someone is |abusing multiple accounts to |promote a non-notable subject and sell their book) and yet passers-by are led to believe this is a highly controversial AfD by virtue of the '''EIGHT separate comments''' the sockpuppet has left
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SCRUTINY||WP:NOTPROMOTION)