Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margarete Gallinat

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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margarete Gallinat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. I found very few reliable sources and only trivial mentions in those. ~~Also potentially a WP:BLP.~~ Staberinde (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Staberinde (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She shows up as a guard in many | Google Book search results, so the claim that she was a concentration camp guard is not controversial or new. Google book results, along with the role, also establish her as notable.New Media Theorist (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct book search would be something like that: [1], which gives far less results. And simply establishing that person existed is not sufficient. There needs to be significant coverage to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI added numerous references, and even found her birth date in a Dutch PhD thesis form the UNiversity of Amsterdam. I think she's notable per WP:GNG, and this may also be a case of many references being pre-internet, seeing as the events she is notable for occurred 70 years ago. Also, per the birth date, she would be 119 years old now, so there are likely no WP:BLP issues.New Media Theorist (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on basis of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, I agree the article is meagre. Quis separabit? 21:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment - I originally closed as Keep but the nominator wanted addition input here (which I agree with!) so I've reopened and relisted this. –Davey2010^Talk 15:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but her name does show up a lot, including in some non English sources. I think most sources on her are probably offline. That said, there are enough sources in article already to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article had zero sources when first brought to AFD, it has now been sourced adequately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Currently it is a bad stub. I am left asking what happened to her after 1945, when many concentration camp guards were tried and executed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is starting to look like WP:SNOW, time to close?New Media Theorist (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2015 (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.