Gunther Fehlinger : One of them is a podcast and another is a tweet.  HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Economics ,  and Austria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree on the current lack of sources, but Fehlinger was a key member in the European Democrat Students group in the 1990s (serving as President) and has amassed significant international media attention in Greece, Brazil, and Armenia for his at-times controversial foreign policy statements.  AceGothstein ( talk ) 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dismantle this page up into five smaller pages and form Ex-Wikipedia Article.  No, but seriously delete .  Fehlinger may be a funny character, but he's really not notable and the passing mentions of him in the sources combined do not meet WP:GNG .  ser!  ( chat to me - see my edits ) 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Admittedly part of the issue with sourcing articles about Fehlinger is that he's offended so many nationalities there are articles about him in too many languages.  AceGothstein ( talk ) 00:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd agree with this for now, unless something important comes up with him.  Interesting guy, just not too notable.  Lucksash ( talk ) 01:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd disagree.  Fehlinger has appeared in multiple mainstream media outlets worldwide for his controversial views, and was at one point a serious internal figure within the European People's Party, serving as head of both its students' wing, European Democratic Students, and as Secretary General of its Union of Small and Medium Enterprises.  ShanGuy37 ( talk ) 20:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point - my bad for thinking he was only interesting for what he's known for now.  Lucksash ( talk ) 23:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thinking on it further, I'd say keep .  I'd consider him notable enough to warrant an article.  Lucksash ( talk ) 00:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Holding these positions doesn't make you notable enough for Wikipedia.  If he was the chair of the actual organisation, sure, maybe that would be worth considering, but being chair of an internal party organisation or its youth wing is not notable.  Ultimately what's needed for a Wikipedia article is significant coverage in reliable sources, and the current passing mentions of Mr Fehlinger having posted something online do not add up to that.  None of the keep votes or claims of notability have attempted to prove this.  ser!  ( chat to me - see my edits ) 20:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is evidently poorly written - the vast majority of sources are tweets by the subject - but I think Fehlinger is notable enough and has had a reasonable amount of coverage as an economist and personality.  Keep would be my vote.  Burger1018 ( talk ) 21:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree.  Gunther may not be the most important person but he is definitely notable enough to have on Wikipedia.  Especially as a rather well known online personality.  156.213.150.165 ( talk ) 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d agree honestly, it seems to me that outside his online presence, which is basically just (hawkish) twitter (which has partly led people to come here and say "i want to keep the article") he isn’t really someone notable enough to have a wikipedia article.  The sources certainly show that, and the fact that he had to call on people to keep his wikipedia page up (in a tweet) demonstrates that his online presence is really simply limited to twitter, if he had the notability needed for wikipedia, I believe that it’d be unlikely that he’d even have to do this, since the article wouldn’t be put up for deletion.  If I counted correctly, 27 of the 42 sources are his own tweets, and a few of the other sources are written by the subject of the article.  I really do not think this qualifies as any sort of notability, and I do agree that it should realistically be deleted, unless better non primary sources are put forward.  This is basically becoming a popularity contest, which I think puts shame on wikipedia as an encyclopaedia.  Tl;dr: He (in my opinion) does not reach the notability needed to have a wikipedia page, nor does he have sources to demonstrate that.  Lexoomfie ( talk ) 21:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I wouldn't say he's some nobody - he has the attention of mainstream media and has held/holds some notable positions.  Solblaze ( talk ) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  06:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is a notable person know for the numerous ngo's of which he is part about Nato, EU and the support for Ukraine.  He has already been interviewd by many tv channels from different european countries.  2001:818:E812:3400:204C:8810:40C3:9C6C ( talk ) 21:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Fehlinger and his activism/commentary have been covered in multiple sources over the years.  CJ-Moki ( talk ) 21:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, not notable enough for a article, (Text removed) AvailableViking ( talk ) 22:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't fulfill general notability guideline .  The sources cited seem to mention him in relation to misinformation on social media.  There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability.  Indeed most of the citations are tweets made by the subject of the article.  Gust Justice ( talk ) 21:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely keep his Wikipedia site.  Regardless how awful might be some of his posts on his social media accounts, this should absolutely not be the reason to remove his Wikipedia site, as there have been an infinitely worse posts, statements, and disgusting insults posted by Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, Matt Walsh, Rudy Giuliani, etc., yet none of them were discussed to be removed from the Wikipedia even though they held much more power than Fehlinger while they supported even very serious crimes (war, ethnic cleansing, attrocities, etc.) 87.67.207.62 ( talk ) 01:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This represents an entirely misinformed understanding of what Wikipedia is.  Toffeenix ( talk ) 03:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The difference between the subject of this article, and the examples you mention, is that those people very clearly have been covered in reliable sources.  I am not saying that social media activity can't be the subject of an article.  What I am saying however is that an individual's personal activity on social media does not constitute a source for the purposes of determining whether an article about that individual is notable.   Show me significant coverage of Gunther Fehlinger in reliable sources that are independent of the him .  That would show that the subject of the article notable.  Gust Justice ( talk ) 03:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for closer : The subject is repeatedly posting on his own Twitter page to canvas.  I already slapped a notice on top, but I just want to post the actual tweet link.  ser!  ( chat to me - see my edits ) 21:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The person is generally irrelevant and an ex-twitter now X attention seeker.  -- Governor Sheng ( talk ) 01:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the general notability guideline.  There is hardly any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  His tweets make up about two-thirds of the total citations.  Add to that some websites of organizations he was a member of, and an opinion article he authored himself, and there is next to nothing left.  My impression is that this isn't a sourcing problem, but reflects the actual prominence of the subject right now.  Daydreamers ( talk ) 21:44, 17 September 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