Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Partsch

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 no consensus defaulting to keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Partsch

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG. Apart from sharing name with a musicologist, there is simply no coverage about him in reliable independent sources. He appears to be mentioned in "Supercharging Supply Chains: New Ways to Increase Value Through Global Operational Excellence", but I have no way of accessing this book. I could find no other print or online sources apart from that single one. Of those listed in the References section, some appear non-independent (or outright written by himself), and others are industry publications which would obviously fail to provide evidence of his notability due to their nature. In any case, his career looks like a run of the mill industry career, with no significance that would hint at inclusion. PK650 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the nomination I went back and rephrased, added further independent sources to underline the relevance of the person for Supply Chain Management. Understanding the guidelines, the changes I made in the article should now meet the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability of the person, neutral information and reliability. Basically I included more neutral resources, most of them German Newspapers that demonstrated the reliability of the information. For WirtschaftsWoche I added a link to the documents. For the other magazines I don’t have websites but have a copy of the documents in printed version, so I can upload/share them if necessary (not sure how Wikipedia treats this kind of information). I also added as a reference a video from the CSMCP (a neutral organization) that cites the article of WirtschaftsWoche as the first documented project in Supply Chain. The video is not anymore in the CSCMP page but I linked it on youtube (can also upload it separately). Additionally to this resources, the book written by Dr. Partsch is available on Amazon, so it can be accessed and checked at any time. And finally, I modified the article to explain with more detail the contribution made by Partsch to the Supply Chain Management arena and how he was the author of big milestones in its creation and early development. I hope this meets the guidelines better - open to learn! Kongolese (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He appears to be author "Supercharging Supply Chains" book, for clarity's sake. It shows 371 cites on GScholar, with two other papers at 25 and 14 cites, and the rest at <10. @Kongolese: it would be helpful if the article was more specific about what the references supported. Text-only refs are perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but the current sourcing in the article leaves some ambiguity, as there's not much info regarding the depth of the coverage, and multiple sources are sometimes used to demonstrate very broad statements (e.g. refs 7, 8, & 9). Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, with the added conclusion that those numbers would not indicate a major role developing the field. PK650 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 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.