Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Mohr (2nd 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 keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Mohr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails all relevant notability policies: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Crime, Japan, Thailand, Germany, Australia, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was closed as soft delete; the article was undeleted upon request today. Given the requestor is an experienced editor who listed 5 likely sources in the UDR, it would be best to have given them more than an hour to work on the article before re-nominating it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources shown by pburka in the undeletion request:

She was the subject of S15E02 of National Geographic's Banged Up Abroad; profiled in Bild; and her trial was sensational and widely covered (and [1] and [2]) in Australia

Jfire (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2010 Bild profile and 2022 National Geographic episode represent significant and persistent coverage in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep sigcov. Reliable sources. NG coverage is significant as well. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've just spent a bit of time adding sources, some of which are in-depth. I think it's fairly comfortable to say the article passes WP:GNG. It still has problems as far needing more citations for the claims made in it. It also appears to have been generated from a translation so it could do with a bit of a rewrite, but those are not reasons for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per pburka. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: aside from the obvious lack of WP:BEFORE, as a minimum in your rationale you should have addressed the sources provided by Pburka in the undeletion request and explain how they do not count toward the GNG. Cavarrone 16:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that refunds for soft deletes and PRODs go through AFC. Barring that, I will AFD them. Either way, the community gets a shot at having a say instead of a unilateral overturn of a legitimate deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: There is no policy-based reason that refunds go through AfC, and there is absolutely no policy that supports taking undeleted articles immediately back to AfD before anyone has even had a chance to work on them. To insist that an editor with 30,000 edits and 250+ articles created, who has been trusted by the community with autopatrol and pending changes review, should have to go through AfC is utterly ridiculous. Failing to perform BEFORE and claiming lack of notability while ignoring sources listed in an undeletion request is very poor behavior indeed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources have been found, article could do with a bit of a cleanup which has started. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2024 (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.