Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasa von Werder (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. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rasa von Werder[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)

Looks to be promotional, poorly sourced - publications named but not linked, which makes one wonder if sources exist or actually source content - and problems not addressed since creation. When it was put up for deletion before, it was kept largely due to promises it would be cleaned up. That has not happened.

Created and edited by one or two SPAs, and recent one is adding promotional content only sourced to a YouTube video. I'd speedy it if not for the multiple editors. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Sportspeople, and Women. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - None of the reasons given by the nominator is based on deletion policy. Previous promises to clean up the not being kept is not a reason to delete, nor is poor sourcing, editing by SPAs etc. The article needs a lot of work to make it an acceptable encyclopaedic article, but articles that are in bad shape is specifically not a reason to delete per policy.

I'd speedy it if not for the multiple editors I don't see any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions that would be applicable here. --John B123 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no justification for deleting this article. Many of the previous issues with the article have been fixed with the recent updates. If there are flaws still, they can be fixed. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater now--Ajax151 (talk), 25 April 2022.

Ajax151, your recent edits led me to do this. You haven't fixed it, you've just added "sourcing" cites that are predominantly bare url links to her own website. Other citations mention publications, but when one clicks on the "link", there is no linked source. At first glance, they appear to be proper citations, linked to the media they cite, but they are only wikilinked to the WP articles about the publications; there is no link to go check to see if the source cites the content.

If you want this article to stay, read WP:CITE or WP:REFB and WP:RS, put the content you've added into the format Wikipedia uses, use sources that aren't the BLP subject's personal site, and actually clean this up. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Photography. Netherzone (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve by reasoning of Keep, instead of deletion, the issues should be fixed. Mahdiar86 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ajax151 is the only person who seems to want to work on this mess. As I said on talk: @Ajax151: you are continuing to mark your edits things like "adding inline citations" when all you are doing is wikifying a word or name of a publication. Similarly, bare urls are not the format for inline citations, either. Above, I gave you the link for how to WP:CITE sources. You need to use Wikipedia formatting and actually add inline cites or these are not really improvements. And nothing has been done about the tone and primary sources problem. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough evidence of coverage in reliable sources assuming AGF that while improperly linked they do signal a pass of WP:GNG. The nomination stems from an editing dispute which is frowned upon. The article needs rewriting but deletion is a step too far, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2022 (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.