Wolfi Landstreicher: Long, D'Amato, and Kinna only mention Landstreicher in passing, failing SIGCOV.  The translation of Stirner does not in itself confer notability, and it is not clear that Landstreicher is "known for" this translation.  While I could find some coverage of Landstreicher, none of it is in sufficiently reliable publications to establish notability.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 14:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philosophy .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 14:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As far as I can tell, Landstreicher's amateur translation of Stirner is the only recent one, so it manages to pick up a handful of citations, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK ; WP:SCHOLARSHIP seems to largely rely on revised versions of Byington 's translation.  - car chasm ( talk ) 15:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fwiw, google scholar gives about 40 citations (and the first bunch I checked are indeed not false positives), which is more than I was expecting.  I found an example scholarly cite here [9] (Ch6 uses Landstreicher's translation).  -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The subject is an important voice in contemporary anarchism and is clearly covered in multiple independent, scholarly sources.  Schenkstroop ( talk ) 15:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While there is coverage, it is not sufficiently significant to meet WP:SIGCOV , in my opinion.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Last deleted in 2017 with this rationale: "Not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable , independent sources . ( ? ) Works not widely held . Not enough depth of reliable, secondary biographical/career coverage to do justice to the topic. Only mentions in other WP articles use primary sources and should be removed—no secondary source discussion of works."  This holds true six years later.  Long 2021 is a passing mention with no context.  Kinna 2021 (Kinna is the editor so the chapter should be credited to Sara Motta) is an extended quote from Landstreicher without analysis.  Casper 2020 is not more than a citation.  D'Amato describes Landstreicher's critique of civilization, but by no means says that he is "known for" it.  The author does not analyze this critique apart from quoting it.  King 2016 similarly only lists Landstreicher and does not analyze his work beyond this broad grouping.  Altogether these sources are not sufficient to write a biography worthy of the subject, e.g., significant coverage in multiple reliable , independent sources .  ( ? ) czar 04:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge into contemporary anarchism .  Per my comments elsewhere, none of these sources imply the notability of the author specifically, although it does appear that his work is of some relevance to post-left anarchism.  Anything worth saving should be moved to the PLA section of contemporary anarchism.  I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to there either.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : fyi to searchers that the subject also goes by Apio Ludd and Feral Faun. I've got a hit I can't access on this source, in case anyone can get it: Sakolsky, Ron.  Social Anarchism; Baltimore Iss. 35,  (Jan 31, 2004): 60. -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Well, having just spent a little while looking, I think it is indeed possible to do as czar asks and write a biography worthy of the subject, using coverage from reliable, independent sources.  In my search, I did also find a scholarly source that called Landstreicher "an important figure in [anarchism in] the USA", which I think is the sort of thing Grnrchst was looking for.  He's namechecked in Routledge handbooks, etc - which, I would argue, is a certain statement of notability, even if the reference itself isn't significant coverage.  There is some sigcov though - that Robinson and Tormey chapter has a section of several pages in which his work is contextualised, two pages of which are almost entirely about him.  I think this is indicative enough of notability that I stopped here, after adding six references to the article.  I didn't check newspapers, or either of the two other names (Apio Ludd and Feral Faun).  -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reviewing those additions: Kinna 2019 (p. 102) is an extended quote, which is why there's nothing more to add about it in the biography.  Rodgers 2014 has no analysis of the translator.  Rossdale and Marone similarly are quotes/passing mentions, i.e., there is no expansion to be made here as it's standard academic citation.  So the only source for discussion is Robinson & Tormey.  I don't see where he is discussed for two pages?  Page 159 describes "From Politics to Life" for a sentence (maybe two—unclear?) but quickly becomes a discussion about post-left anarchism, not Landstreicher nevertheless his work.  The next page summarizes "Feral Revolution" for two sentences in context of post-left anarchism.  What part of this supports a full description of his work, nevertheless a biography?  I could see a single-sentence mention in (and a redirect to) the post-left anarchism section if a source describes him as important to that current (what is the source you quoted?) But if this is the best we've got, I don't see how it's enough for the general notability guideline or a dedicated article.  czar 20:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The one that calls him "an important figure" is Marone.  That article is just glancing coverage though - it's where I got the "his influences include" sentence and there isn't much else there.  So, an indication of the subject's notability, but hardly sigcov.  Regarding R&T, the coverage includes descriptions of his work and its context, rather more than is given in a typical Kirkus/PW review, which are routinely used to demonstrate notability for authors, so yes, I'd call it significant.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kirkus/PW are trade publications that review with little discrimination so they shouldn't be used for notability but that's a different story.  czar 23:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I think.  I think there's a fair argument to be made that these sources satisfy the GNG.  But setting the formalities of policy aside, I have to agree with those who have said above that there just isn't enough in them to build a satisfactory article out of.  A merge to contemporary anarchism per Grnrchst could be fine,but the fact that he isn't currently mentioned in that seemingly well-maintained article gives me some pause about that.  (And in the absence of such a mention, a redirect would violate the principle of least astonishment.)  There seems to possibly be some history behind his non-presence there -- which is not to say that he shouldn't be there, but does suggest to me that this might not be a good situation for simply merging for merging's sake.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The fact that you believe that there isn't enough in the sources "to build a satisfactory article out of" is not a valid reason for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schenkstroop ( talk • contribs ) 18:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Schenkstroop it's coming from #8 in a sort of roundabout way, along with a general aversion to WP:PERMASTUBs , an aversion I do not personally share.  There's nothing wrong with a good stub; paper encyclopedias are full of them.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 7, 9, and 14 could also be construed this way.  Not that I'd necessarily agree, but they could be.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lacking sources to build a "satisfactory article" is just a kinder phrasing of "it doesn't meet the general notability guideline ", i.e., it relies on passing mentions czar 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: This article now has 12 sources cited, and it's only served to reinforce the argument that it doesn't meet GNG .  Seriously, a dozen sources, and yet none of them actually provide significant coverage of the subject.  To go over them: Casper 2020, p. 343 references Landstreicher as the translator of Stirner's book, in a footnote about Stirner, with no extra detail on Landstreicher; D'Amato 2021, p. 147 has a paragraph about Landstreicher's critique of anarcho-primitivism; King 2016, p. 37 briefly mentions Landstreicher in a list of individualist authors, largely describing their work collectively and only going into further depth on Hakim Bey; Motta 2012, p. 261 (cited as the editor Kinna) has a paragraph on Landstreicher's book From Politics to Life , in a larger section about post-left anarchism that cites half a dozen other authors; Kinna 2019, p. 102 has a paragraph of Landstreicher's anti-science views, as part of a larger section on anarchism's relationship with science; Long 2021, p. 29 briefly mentions Landstreicher in a list of individualists; Marone 2015, p. 197 has a short paragraph on Landstreicher, describing him as an "important figure in the USA" and listing his influences as Stirner, Bonanno and anti-civ, but without going into any further depth; Pike 2018, p. 149 briefly mentions Landstreicher's advocacy of rewilding, as part of a larger section about rewilding; Rodgers 2014, pp. 32-33 is a review of a book that Landstreicher translated and never actually discusses Landstreicher; Robinson 2009, pp. 159-162 briefly mentions Landstreicher's definition of post-left anarchy, mentions Feral Faun among a long list of post-left authors, and briefly quotes Faun's anti-domestication views; Rossdale 2019, pp. 69-73 quotes Landstreicher as part of a larger section on miltarism and anti-militarism.  So these largely consist of brief mentions without any depth, or paragraph-length references within larger subject overviews.  None of them focus on Landstreicher specifically, so this is clearly still lacking in significant coverage.  Of the reliable sources that do go into some level of depth, they are better utilised within articles about other subjects, including anarcho-primitivism , rewilding , post-left anarchy and individualist anarchism .  I'm still of the opinion that relevant information in this article should be merged into those articles and this one be deleted, unless somebody can find literally any significant coverage of this author that lasts longer than a paragraph.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 13:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was my original point, and as you point out, nobody has addressed it in a meaningful way.  Lack of notability cannot be WP:OVERCOME with tenacious editing.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 13:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - What makes this person known is the fact they ran a Zine (a self published magazine) from 1996 to 2006 called "Willful Disobedience".  I got that off a user-submitted site, not a reliable source.  I'm calling a "bluff" on the idea that the sources are in depth if we don't even get that detail out of them.   The ones I reviewed were trivial mentions.  Denaar ( talk ) 04:23, 6 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete