Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sibylle Berg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate wasSpeedy keep per the nominator's withdrawal.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sibylle Berg

WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep per reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic. - Fan-1967 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Copied from article mentioned:
      • ... per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Published by the top names in German literature. Can you two dish it out on your respective talk pages? ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nearly six hundred unique G-hits on German Google, decent sales on Amazon.de. Once again, I'm quite interested in hearing nom's evidence for his assertions. RGTraynor 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I would think that an interested person would be able to somewhat expand the article and she does appear to be noteworthy Comment Some people can see merit or worthiness in an article were as others can't - If Universitytruth thinks a subject is WP:NN then that is fine and let everyone discuss it - that is why this page exists DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Retract nom per t&e, RGT, DH: I think the article needs work, and will be glad to improve it myself as expiation for having initiated an AfD. It's precisely this input I wanted from other editors. Thanks for all of your comments. Universitytruth 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep That's the spirit! An improved article is the best result possible. Dlyons493 Talk 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
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.