Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uta Dammann

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uta Dammann[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability requirements. There is some coverage of her in sources, but this is mostly in the form of interviews and therefore not independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I normally stay away from deletion disscussions, but after cleaning out references, I feel I should note that of the 21 references in text, 13 of them were other Wikipedia articles that can't be used as references. They were not sourcing anything to begin with, like using the article Iraq to source that she was a senior executive on projects there, the telecommunication article to source that she started a business, or her a reference to a church to source that she was a member. These articles have nothing to do with anything mentioned in her article. Of the remaining references, there are Facebook pages, Twitter, home pages of websites rather than one that supports the text, etc. A google search doesn't come up with much more than social networking sites, and those already mentioned here. I really don't see how the subject could pass notability with what's provided here. Cmr08 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New editors sometimes use references to provide links to other articles because they don't yet know about wikilinks, but here we had both. Thanks for doing the clean-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass a simple google-news hit count (2), or even google (353). What is out there - isn't enough.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Noting WP:HITS, there is insufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2017 (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.