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. The consensus seems to be to delete. I take note that the original version of the article was a negative BLP. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Dieter Neupert

Dieter Neupert (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Swiss lawyer of some renown, however coverage is slim to non-existent. One newspaper article (already in the article) covers him but other than that, I cannot find any substantial coverage in reliable sources (some passing mentions exist).

There is this article in Al Bawaba detailing his alleged business practices in connection with the Panama Papers but I found no sources corroborating any of that, so I removed the negative text from the article which was sourced to this article. Check the history for details. Since I cannot find any more sources, I think he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG (but the claims in the previous version make him ineligible for A7). Regards So Why 12:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not notable as stand alone stub, much less an article. Kierzek ( talk) 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not meet GNG. Lacks significant coverage. Not fluent in German, had to run source article through Google translate and then think about the sense of the translation. (It's probably that it is Swiss German which is not always the same as other German dialects.) It's a puff piece about a rich concierge attorney for the rich. Squeeze it dry, and shake it out, you see a sort of society page, run of the mill, coverage for a rich guy. Not familiar with Der Tages-Anzeiger (The Daily Scoreboard). Apparently a regional broadsheet. Not sufficient coverage to meet the GNG, even if the article per se were not a puff piece. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Der Tages-Anzeiger is actually a national Swiss newspaper, one of the largest and usually reliable. Regards So Why 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

tHANKS, SoWhy. But I still don't think the article is enough for subject to meet GNG. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete There are some sources - [1], [2] covering his work as a lawyer for oligarchs - but I don't think this is enough. With more sources, maybe. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The Tages-Anzeiger is a major national newspaper; it is the most widely read paper in the Zürich area. A long biographical article in it is indicative of notability just as much as, say, a Los Angeles Times or USA Today article would be in the US. Together with the other coverage of his business affairs I think this makes Mr. Neupert pass GNG. (COI notice: I am a Swiss lawyer, but have never heard of Mr. Neupert. Probably because I'm not rich enough, or don't know enough rich people.)  Sandstein  07:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've just added four citations to the article (three behind a paywall, but that can't be helped). The Tages-Anzeiger citation is a bit gushy and tabloid-y. (I endorse User:Sandstein's comments on T-A - I live in UK, but know of it and agree that it's a major newspaper.) The new citations are less flattering, as their titles make clear. Three independent sources specifically about him? that passes WP:NBIO AFAIC. Narky Blert ( talk) 01:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - easy one - not even on German Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:22, 13 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.