Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Holluba

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Holluba

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a financial administrator in political parties' internal organization structures. This is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself -- it could still get him into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, but it does not entitle him to an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing. But the only source shown here at all is a (deadlinked) profile on the primary source website of the political party he works for, with no indication of media coverage about him shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, the page in its current state does not establish enough notability to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn treasurer. No claim to notability in politics, and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. He is an undistinguished party apparatchik. Also does not qualify under NACADEMIC. --Bejnar (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2017 (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.