Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renate Thyssen-Henne (3rd nomination)

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 08:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renate Thyssen-Henne[edit]

This article appears to have been recreated, intact, after its earlier deletion for such flagrant abuses as this: "Despite her many different activities, Renate Thyssen-Henne has always been a caring mother and a committed head of the family. And of course her beloved dogs Jacky and Halifax are part of her close family." Obviously written by a publicist, employee, friend or family member of the subject, if not the subject herself.Wlegro (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed malformed nom. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We still do bios of the Seriously Rich Folks, don't we? Obvious issues with the non-encyclopedic writing style, so get in there and fix it. Deleting these things on no grounds other than sheer jealousy has to wait until Year Zero. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after removing the PR. Sufficient social importance--for whatever reason-- to be notable. DGG (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andy Dingley is off base; attributing my problem with the article to "jealousy" is a slur and has nothing to do with the issue. The nomination has to do with the quality of the article, not the subject. She seems indeed accomplished in some way, famous both for her achievements and for "being famous." Whether she is notable enough to be in Wikipedia isn't my concern here and I offer no judgment on that; so many things that many might think are not notable are included in Wikipedia that it's impossible to set a standard. But a standard of quality of writing and information is possible, and this article falls far short. My "issue" with the non-encyclopedic writing style is something I picked up from much reading of Wikipedia and the great many objections and nominations for deletions, so that issue is a legitimate one. If Dingley can't do better in advocating a "keep" he should refrain because all he's done here is insult. My problem with the article is similar to those already noted in previous discussions. If Dingley thinks it's a keeper, he should be the one to rewrite it or contact the author and offer instructions on how to write a decent entry.Wlegro (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Setting aside both the lousy writing style and the tone and content of Andy Dingley's remarks, I think this individual seems pretty notable. She's done prominent work in business and charity, and is an active participant in a reasonably high-profile social scene. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is she notable? Every gnews return for her name appears to be about her daughter's marriage/divorce. Most of the early ghits look like wikipedia clones or blogs. If she's a notable philanthropist or business leader there should be something beyond this for coverage. Whole article reads like a press release. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:16, 5 October 2008 (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.