Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Albert

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. Sandstein 07:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Albert[edit]

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

This person does not seem notable enough to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. Better suited for the German Wikipedia maybe? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia aims to be an international encyclopedia. Just because this version is written in English does not mean that we focus our coverage on those who operate in English-speaking countries or require sources to exist in English. I have no opinion at this time as to weather Albert actually is notable, I just have to point out the deletion nomination is built on flawed understandings of language and Wikipedia. In theory the content of the German-language and English-language Wikipedias should be identical. In practice, because of how Wikipedia is operated, the notability guidelines in various language versions do not always end up being the same. Beyond this translation usually lags behind creation, and other factors come into play. However in theory an article that belongs in the German-language version of Wikipedia belongs in the English-language version of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A number of valid sources testify to notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The enWP covers the world, but applies the enWP standard to all articles. This does not meet the standard the references are straight PR, and the BBC list given is not enough to indicate notability, as they have no clear standards for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does a German version of the article already exist and how long has it been there, if so? If so, it would help with the enWP standards discussion. Simone2049 (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. GretLomborg (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG due to coverage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-34805141/antonia-albert-25-germany https://www.forbes.com/pictures/5a6233d8a7ea431690113e32/careship-antonia-albert--/#2d12fce41691 https://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/it/careship-deutsches-start-up-will-pflegekraefte-vermitteln/21143628.html https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/careship/ If someone proposed merging her with an article on Careship, then that might make sense. But, not deletion. Ross-c (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article with much more information and several more citations. I think there's just enough discussion about Albert as an individual to pass WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, I would not object to merging this with an article on Careship, which appears to have received a great deal of media attention (even more than the founders). Lonehexagon (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging into a new Careship article would make sense and would be my preference. Although easy to say from my perspective as that would require someone to first create the article I assume! Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2018 (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.