Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odette Krempin (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 was no consensus. Upon further review at the DRV, it seems that consensus is to close this as no consensus, default to keep. Therefore I see no need to keep it deleted, as it seems that sources were added to the article post creation of the AFD, and the delete !votes are therefore old. The !keeps are (while not the strongest ever, and some are indeed crap) therefore keep their voice as turning this into no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous Close)The result was delete. I throughly looked over this discussion, and have come to the opinion that this AFD merits a delete closure. The !vote count is close (discounting the canvassing that was done), but the delete !voters presented much better arguments than the keep !votes. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 14:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Krempin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

Odette Krempin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article survived a previous AfD owing to general claims of notability. However, it grew into a BLP nightmare and was full of unreferenced claims of all sorts. It was recently stripped of all unreferenced material, i.e. everything, and nothing of note remains. A search for sources was conducted, turning up only a couple marginal news stories about the subject's involvement in a minor beauty pageant controversy. As it stands, there are no reliable sources proving notability. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get errors on the first two sources but the rest are ok. It would be great if someone could have this included in a well written translation. Ludlom (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may be good in theory. That is, IF we had German speaking wikipedians wiling to translate them and write the article, and if those or others were then going to maintain it against BLP violations. However, in the two and a half years that this article has existed we've had no one to maintain it, and it has been a solid mess of POV. Now, unless there's evidence that something is going to change, it is evident that we can't write maintain this article in an acceptable form - and so it is safest to delete it. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but pointing me at a few foreign language sources will not do that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Scott. I have no idea what those sources say, and it is impossible to defend an article against BLP concerns when we have no idea what the sources say. Interested editors have had ample time to put this into proper shape, but it has been a problem instead. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Bridger, and based on my understanding of German (in any event, I've asked some with high-level German translation capability to opine here as well, as they will be best able to judge; if their view conflicts w/mine, I am open to changing my vote). See some more gnewshits here and here. As far as the comments above regarding the use of non-English sources, the relevant core content policy is WP:NONENG, which states in pertinent part: "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available."--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:BLP trumps WP:NONENG in this case. If you review the history of this article, all people have done here is added claims, some of them ludicrous and/or libelous, that no English source backs up. When we cleaned them up, we now have one sentence. I'm sorry but we need English sources for contentious BLP additions, of which everything in this article was. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP points to the verifiability content policy. Which is as indicated above. Do you see anything in BLP or in the archived discussions at blp that controverts that clear statement? I didn't. If so, please refer us to it. I see nothing at Wikipedia's core policy that supports your assertion that "we need English sources", and I see language that says we do not need English sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see your point. I just meant that if someone adds something controversial, I would prefer to have an English source that anyone can verify. Do you feel she is notable enough for an article? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Happily, our fellow editors with strong German language skills have weighed in and done excellent work on the article as well. Yes, IMHO the coverage in RSs is sufficient evidence of notability under wikipedia standards to warrant keeping the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand, why my from german into english translated extraction of a television report (Frontal21) has been deleted. No5oo
  • Comment Someone notified me on my talk page about this article and its nomination for deletion and the need for German sources - I added some content. Hekerui (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic work. Kudos. If I were in the habit of giving out barnstars, you would certainly deserve one.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought. Done.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that a person be a celebrity in order for their article to be kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it seems to be her only importance. Otherwise she seems to be a minor businessperson. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage, not celebrity, would appear to be the applicable test. IMHO. As in: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree that news media in Germany talking about her is a good reason for English language Wikipedia to have an article on her. I also have no reason to think they are reliable or intellectually independent. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should news media in Germany be any less reliable or independent than news media anywhere else? Germany has some of the strictest laws on libel and privacy in the world, so their news media heve to be reliable by law when writing about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. The Deutsche Presse-Agentur is about as reliable as AP, Reuters, and AFP. Also consider checking the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Hekerui (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was more about the kind of reporter who spends his or her time reporting on "celebrities", not about the German news media in general. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a bit disappointing that all of the citations are in German, although perhaps with all this news we may get something tomorrow in the English reports, already half is taken up by this new controversy, the article previouely was a BLP problem and was repeatedly attacked, I am interested but still not swayed as yet to move to keep. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too was asked to check the German sources for reliability and I can attest that all accusations made in this version are sourced by the (reliable) German links:
  1. "Among other charges the honorary consul is accused of holding fake titles and of abusing the logos of alleged sponsors" (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung).
  2. "When asking the Paris UNICEF headquarters about her, ZDF television was told she was unknown there." (Hessischer Rundfunk)
  3. "Yesterday the [Hessian] state parliament's faction of the Green Party demanded from Congolese honorary consul Princess Odette Krempin to explain the whereabouts of donations." (Wiesbadener Kurier)
Anyhow, I don't see any special relevance for this person. The German Wiki is also discussing the corresponding article over there and the majority of reviewing users there is willing to delete it. Krempin may be an honorary consul with accusations of a charity scam but I didn't even know her name until I read my talk page message today, so I for one can't attest any relevant national media coverage or importance. It seems to me this row is rather confined to Hesse yet. De728631 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If all the charges are true, which they might be, then she is a minor con-artist and still not notable for an article in English WP.Northwestgnome (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Weak delete I am not convinced that the minor coverage of her as a designer[tt_news=6420&no_cache=1][1] means that she rises above WP:BLP1E (the event being claiming to be honorary consul an ambassador for UNESCO and the fall-out from that). The argument against using non-English sources is wrong by the way, it has been confirmed again and again that subjects in non-English-speaking countries can be written about using non-English sources. Fences&Windows 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree (obviously) on the language point. As to BLP1E, there appear to be a number of events at issue. One is the use of charitable donations. A second is whether she is in fact a princess. A third is the misuse of corporate logos. A fourth is whether she is a UNESCO ambassador. They are being discussed at once, but strike me as different events, some of which are rather unrelated to each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is honorary consul for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that's undoubted. The question about the ambassadorship for UNESCO, being a princess etc. is quite different. Hekerui (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced, though I see now there was some German press coverage of her prior to the recent scandal, i.e. [2][3] Fences&Windows 02:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well now, I imagine a number of us on both sides of the aisle would have gone to the death camps, for any of a number of reasons. And that a number of those who went to the death camps could do a better job translating the article sources than you or I could do. Given that I've just worked hard to save this article from AfD, I don't imagine you are charging me personally with inappropriate POV. That said, I find your comment slightly off-point, but I imagine it will help the closing admin weigh the relevance of your rationale, and the corresponding significance of your vote, and for that I thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. In general I have found WP admins somewhat dense on the subject of human feelings and emotions, (and I never expected this article to be deleted). I am not including you in that, I have no idea why you like this article. You might have a perfectly good reason. Thanks for your work on the other article. I never thought you were pro-Nazi. It's just the idea of German reporters attacking an African woman that seems so... like something we don't need on English WP.Northwestgnome (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Godwin's law is still alive and kicking. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure what your angle is here, Northwestgnome, but the going consensus seems to be that the German-language sources we've used are considered reliable. I would not even have nominated this article for deletion in its current condition. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth has anything in the article got to do with Hitler?! Even trying my best to AGF, the comment "It's just the idea of German reporters attacking an African woman that seems so..." seems like racism/xenophopbia to me - are people not allowed to challenge alleged fraud just because they happen to be German? "German" and "Nazi" are not the same thing, and it seriously depresses me to find people still conflating them in 2009! Oscroft (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (I was also contacted on my talk page.) From the sources given in the article, she is clearly notable, first as a philanthropist, then as an (alleged) criminal. There are multiple sources from some of the most respected German newspapers (broadsheets not tabloids), and the article reflects the sources accurately. BLP doesn't come into this, since there is not a single unsourced negative statement about her in the article. -- Marcika (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP covers other issues than just sourcing. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. But that and blp1E are the only blp concerns that have been raised (and the latter point only by one editor, and I've responded to that comment w/a different view).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability seemed to be weak on the last AFD. Is this notability a local/regional or national or international? I never heard of her before since I'm not into fashion. Maybe there might be someone into fasion in Germany, Europe or Africa that might shed some light on her. But the thing I find strange is that the article introduces her as part of a honorary consul whereas the last AFD for this article claims that her notability is as a fashion designer. Kingjeff (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As if a day ago "fashion designer" was still in the first sentence. Its not reflected later in the article. The focus of the more recent articles is away from her fashion designer background, which is I imagine why in copyediting someone moved it out of the lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no reports at all in English about this recent news story perhaps she has some little local notability, a bit like the Mayor of my local town has been reported in a few papers but in the wider reality he is not notable. Personally I find the fact that all the support for her notability is in German papers and also in the german language, this is the EN wiki. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German sources point has been addressed ad nausuem above. In English. With reference to the English language wikipedia core content policy known as WP:NONENG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that, that section is not actually supporting your position, the section is related to an article with one or two foreign language citations and is not to support the position that an article should be cited throughout with foreign language citations. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just make that up?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob, that is not my reading of the policy. If someone has received significant coverage only in foreign-language media, that should be sufficient. Notability aside, of course—we'll have to come to an agreement here about whether she is generally notable. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I read it that way, this is the en wikipedia after all, imo someone notable here is different from the same person being notable in this case the German Language, that situation alone says to me that she is not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia is written in English; the language of the sources used to verify the articles is irrelevant. Topics notable due to coverage solely in a non-English language are fine for inclusion in Wikipedia. To think otherwise is to argue that English-language texts are more important than non-English texts, simply because this encyclopedia is written in English, which is pretty parochial. What matters is whether sources are reliable and the coverage is significant. Fences&Windows 14:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your opinion fences and window,if the coverage was significant then there would be some english citations, if a subject is really notable as regards this wikipedia you would expect to be able to include citations in English, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fences is not just giving his/her opinion, but actually reflecting what the policy says. Nothing whatsoever in the policy itself reflects Off2's personal POV. If you would like to change policy, the appropriate place to do that would be by discussion at the policy page. Not here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is fences and windows interpretation of the policy that is all the same as my interpretation and anybody else's, please stay away from personal comments, I have already opened a discussion at the policy page made a bold edit to the policy, although it was reverted and I am discussion there hoping to clarify what the position actually is at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my comments were personal. But I stand by my comment. Fence's reflection of the language of the policy is not an interpretation, but a mirror of it. Your "interpretation" lacks any basis whatsoever in the language of the policy. That has been reflected not only by me, buy my another editors on both this page and at the discussion you have opened at the discussion policy page, which I appreciate your both opening and pointing us to. The problem, it strikes me, is not one of German at this point. But of English.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Wow, things have certainly moved on since I originally requested page protection (against the addition of unreferenced allegations of fraud). On the WP:NONENG issue, I agree with what seems to be the emerging consensus - that this being the English language Wikipedia does not mean it can only include subjects that are referenced in English (at least, that's how I understand it, that the issue is not what language someone has been noted in, but whether they are notable in the world in general - it seems like cultural arrogance to insist that people are only worthy of note if they've been written about in English). And so the existence of references in German only (given that they are of high quality) is not a good reason to delete. On notability, I'm not sure, but is "honorary consul of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Frankfurt am Main" not sufficient? Anyway, after reading what everyone else has said, my feeling on the deletion issue is to veer on the side of "keep", but wait a bit longer and see if anything else emerges. Oscroft (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as ref'd and our coverage of notable Africans is so unbalanced that afding such articles when they meet our notability requirements is just plain wrong. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The highly reliable sources now in the article make notability quite clear. Of course sources need not be in English to prove notability, especially in the light of the instant availability of online translation. They might require an assist from human translation for subtle BLP issues, but not really for the much grosser distinction of notability for AfD purposes.John Z (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources prove notability. Dream Focus 02:42, 20 December 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odette_Krempin_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1223516182"