Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martina Fuchs

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 delete. Sandstein 09:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Fuchs[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 in-depth RS for her to pass WP:GNG, created by a sock-farm. Most of the sources are primary and mostly passing mentions. If we start accepting similar bios, nearly all TV anchors will be on Wikipedia and there will be no significance of notability. Akisharmadi (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akisharmadi (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what our normal approach is for articles created by socks and I don't want to put too much effort into saving this per WP:BOGOF, but an honest nomination needs to include WP:BEFORE, and this one seemingly did not. [1], already present on the page, clearly qualifies for GNG. Beyond that, there's [2], which is an interview but a reported, highly biographical one. I suspect if we search/review policy a little harder this will turn out to be a keep. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to creation by sock. Might have been eligible for G5, except the work of Curb Safe Charmer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails notability, also eligible for G5. 27.100.15.22 (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2020 (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.