Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Becker

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. Trending towards keep. Sandstein 08:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Becker[edit]

[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)

No discernible nontrivial significance. (There's nothing in the article. There's virtually nothing in her website, as scraped by the Wayback Machine. There are dribs and drabs of unencyclopedic drivel from dailymail.co.uk. And that's about it.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Boris Becker article; otherwise, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the proposal to redirect: I thought of that, but quickly wondered why it should redirect to Boris Becker and not to Arne Quinze. And, after a couple more seconds, why an article on anybody should redirect to the article on anybody she'd divorced: such a redirect would seem to say that she's no more than an appendage to the person she previously divorced, which strikes me as gratuitously insulting. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "appendage", I would not say that; you are reading too much into it; the fact is Becker is the last name she kept and apparently uses, and certainly he is much better known, but frankly in the end it does not matter which one. She is too trivial for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably notable German TV actress. No idea why her acting career isn't featured in the article. —Kusma (t·c) 08:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, would you care to add a couple of reliable, non-trivial (etc etc) sources for this reasonable notability? I don't even know which name I should use when searching. And if the article survives, how do you think it should be titled? As I've indicated, it would normally strike me as insulting to retain a name used before a divorce, another wedding and another divorce; but I'm willing to believe that extraordinary circumstances may justify this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of the original acting career is as "Barbara Feltus", like her IMDB profile. Looking at that, she seems less notable as an actress in her own right than Meghan Markle was, but her marriage to Boris Becker was a huge event in 1990s Germany, as was the subsequent divorce. To this day, she is one of the most prominent people of colour in Germany, always as "Barbara Becker". For example, here is a recent debate about racism that she was involved in. Have you done a Google News search? Of course a lot of the results are tabloid journalism, but why does that mean we shouldn't have an article about her? —Kusma (t·c) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can partly agree with you, Kusma: It doesn't matter how great a percentage of the material about her is tabloidy; if there's a significant amount that isn't tabloidy, then she could be encyclopedia-worthy. The article you've linked to isn't tabloidy. But what does it say about her? That she's (justifiably, imho) appalled by racism, and that she's a DJ and painter. But there's nothing about her activities as a DJ or painter, about her other/earlier activities, or her other notability. If other articles showed her notability as an actor, DJ, painter or whatever, then yes she should get an article, and something about her family and its subjection to racism should be part of this article, and this would be a good source for the latter. But I've yet to see evidence of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She may possibility warrant a separate article on German Wikipedia, but for English Wikipedia, which this is, she is unknown and trivial. Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying, Kierzek, that somebody's notability for speakers/readers of language X is a lot greater than her notability for speakers/readers of English, and that this may justify an article about her in X-language Wikipedia without justifying one in English-language Wikipedia, then I disagree. If German-language sources alone demonstrated that she was notable, she'd be notable, even if she were totally unknown to those who don't speak/read German. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you spent time on German and Japanese Wikipedia as I do, you would see my point, but there is no reason to go down that rabbit hole. The fact is, Ms. Becker is not notable enough for a separate article and does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy not to spend much time in Japanese-language Wikipedia, which appears to be edited vigorously by many people whose favorite activity is adding unsourced lists. Occasionally I'm surprised to discover a sourced and good article there. However, as you say, we digress. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the English and German-language Wikipedias, there's enough for WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The English one is becoming rather odd. I clicked on a link to "A week in the life of the superwoman" and was instead sent to "Barbara Becker: Eine Woche im Leben der Powerfrau". The damn website refused to serve up the page unless I disabled my ad-blocker, which I wouldn't do; skimreading through the source, I find that for example she's a healthy woman who enjoys gardening. Where's the notability? -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is getting close to a Keep consensus but let's see if we can make it clear, one way or another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inserted five mainstream citations [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Otrantos (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Otrantos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ... and also has been blocked indefinitely (by Bbb23)[reply]

Let's look at these mainstream citations. Here they are, one by one, with my brief descriptions of what they say about Barbara Becker (BB):

BBC: the Beckers' marriage, "the bombshell that the two had broken up", and the financial aspects of their divorce. Nothing else about BB.
LA Times: "Becker's Divorce Battle With American Wife Rivets Germans"; also, on media frenzy around this "battle". BB was a "former actress and model" with black hair and black eyes.
CNN: On the divorce settlement. BB, "a former model and actress, is the daughter of a former U.S. Army medical corps officer", was 33 years old.
Observer: On the impending court case. We learn that BB was half of "Germany's most high-profile interracial marriage", and that she "had become accepted beyond the confines of the progressive Left", that "She was an actress and model - the daughter of a German mother and an American father who came to Europe as a lieutenant in the medical corps and stayed on to become a successful photographer and designer."
Telegraph: She's the mother of Noah Becker, and she "has a German mother and an African-American father".

No argument from me that these are from reliable sources (though the BBC and the Observer articles both seem uncharacteristically tabloidy). But what do they say? I see no evidence in any of these five that BB was/is notable for anything other than marrying Boris Becker (and thereby upsetting racist birdbrains), having two sons, and going through a noisy divorce. There's nothing whatever about her Boris-independent achievements as a model, an actress, or anything else. I don't deny that she has had them (I really don't know); but if she has had them, then they're not apparent from this material. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary I get that you're trying to find things in the articles that you think justify her notability, but has it occurred to you that the fact that reliable news organizations (and tabloids) keep writing articles about her is *because* she is notable? Not all notable people deserve their notability (Kardashians ???) but it doesn't mean that they're not notable. Robman94 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robman94, I suppose that news and gossip sources write about her either because she's notable for something or because she has notability inherited from one or other of her ex-husbands or ... I dunno. I'm very willing to believe that it's the first of these, as indeed Kusma has suggested above. Indeed, I hope that it is. I did take a quick look for evidence of this; I found nothing. I'm willing to believe that my search was incompetent/inadequate; but the last time I looked, nobody had added or even referred to an appreciable amount of superior sourcery. (If they did, I'd withdraw this nomination.) Family Kardashian (and Ms P Hilton) do seem to be mere celebs, "famous for being famous", but for those Americans (perhaps in part because they are Americans) there are TV shows and much more involved; and the volume of coverage, undeserved/vapid though it may be, is vastly greater. Incidentally, I hope that I don't need to say this, but I bear the subject of this article no ill-will (I have no opinion about any divorce procedure/settlement, or about either ex-husband), and am appalled to read of the racist treatment of her and at least one of her sons. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sourcing in the article. "There's nothing in the article" is no longer true. Tillerh11 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - sources added to article. Clearly independently notable of her former husband - continuing coverage to present (some 17 years after divorce) - passing SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 4 July 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.