Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beate Heister

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beate Heister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable except for the high net worth Qwv (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Germany. Qwv (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwv (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you looked at the German-language article? There's barely anything more there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• She and her brother could be merged to Karl Albrecht. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This of course is not a great incentive for deletion, but people have repeatedly tried to add to the article (as evidenced by the talk page and the edit history) warnings about it being used as part of a confidence scam. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no policy or procedure against this kind of usage. — OttoMäkelä (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for suggested Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Her Bloomberg Billionaires Index entry provides reasonably substantial coverage from a strong RS. Combined with the sources in the article this seems to meet the GNG. At the risk of stating the obvious, WP:NOTINHERITED does not stand for the proposition that heirs cannot be notable as such. As to the suggested merge, merging biographies tends to be suboptimal as it mucks up things like categories. As we have enough here for a modest article, I don't think a merge is warranted. The use of the page for scammery is IMO an important concern, but maybe more of an RFPP issue. -- Visviva (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I see no consensus for any particular outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC as article has been expanded since it was first nominated and there are more sources now offering a bit of substantive information about this notoriously private individual. In a world where "fake German heiress" gets 150,000+ pageviews per month, it seems reasonable to keep the article about a real German heiress, who also happens to be the fifth richest woman in the world, who gets 10,000+ pageviews per month. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Coverage helping to satisfy WP:BASIC (out of what I have seen so far) include: the slightly unfortunately translated CE Noticias Financieras article ("What are the five richest women in the world?"); the Manager Magazin in-depth feature article about the entire family; and the 2021 Focus Online article which devotes four sizeable paragraphs to the two siblings. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks to the kind effort of Cielquiparle and Eastmain, the article passes WP:GNG. With 10,284 pageviews in the past 30 days, our readers are clearly interested in the subject, and we should be aiming to produce the best BLP-compliant article we reasonably can. Edwardx (talk) 13:28, 10 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.