Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Mir

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Mir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Effectively unsourced (external links are no sources).

Reads as self-promo or a special written promo-piece (I received a contract ; Also for ProSieben, Mir told me about ) The Banner talk 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced Biography of a Living Person. That's really all I need to say, because that's a reason for deletion all by itself. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Exemplo347 and the nominator have policy wrong, this is AfD, and WP:BEFORE applies. It's fairly clear through a simple search on this persons name that there are a number of articles with this model as their topic in German magazines. You want to delete it for being unsourced, try WP:BLPPROD, or better yet, fix the article. Note that there is a DE.WIKI article on the subject. --joe decker^talk 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I looked at the news available and they were simply 2 pages of entertainment news, nothing substantial and they seemed to be focused as social media, hence not substance and nothing for an acceptable article (magazines yes, but not convincing ones). What's currently here is simply for some achievements as a model such as the contestant show, nothing else significant. Also, signs show the GermanWiki is in fact not maintaining itself at all now so they are not an automatic defense. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator is known for listing articles never doing WP:BEFORE. Person meets WP:GNG: [1] (Bild), [2] (Aachener Zeitung), [3] (Amica (magazine)), [4] (Express (Cologne newspaper)). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, you are back to your revenge-commenting. You should have applied WP:BEFORE on your own articles before publishing... The Banner talk 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is off topic here. Why posting everywhere where you can how bad I am? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we just stop the bantering? Sander admittively the only reason you voted here in the first place was because the Banner nominated the article. You're just trying to spite him and start conflict.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TheGracefulSlick: The point is The Banner nominates already for months on a regular basis articles of me, that are always (speedy) kept for not doing WP:BEFORE. And so it's logic I take a look at other articles he nominates to see if there is a trend. And soI told him that at his talk page. After some search where I found easily realible sources I can better reply to this AfD as it might help the discussion. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is more a desperate and disruptive revenge-campaign. The Banner talk 18:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sander.v.Ginkel and aren't you the same user who will literally have thousands of articles deleted because of poor diligence and BLP violations so who are you to criticize him? If you were unwilling to put any effort into your content, why should other editors? That's laziness. Please stick to the Afd if you are continuing a discussion here. Also, consider having some pride in your work; like I always say, quality over quantity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to discuss editor conduct. If those involved would like to continue such a discussion, do so somewhere else. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promo article with no real significance coming from sources to turn into a worthwhile piece for the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - News search yields 7k results. Basically all of them are non-English, but I have a hard time believing that all seven thousand of them are unreliable news outlets. The German version has more than a dozen sources, and although it looks like the article was deleted in 2011, it looks like it was actually restored two months later following further discussion. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 19 January 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.