Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Klingmann


 * 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. After the relisting, the consensus is obviously keep. Note that the nominator voted to keep, too. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Anna Klingmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly promotional article; largely unreferenced, what refs there are are self-references. No evidence of meeting notability requirements. Has been tagged for almost three years without action. Even if she were prima facie notable, this article does not meet WP:BLP as there are zero RSes even to form a culled stub from. News searches mostly find other people called Anna Klingmann. Links to the book are mostly primary. I'm willing to be convinced ... David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * edit: +1 to, I'm happy with her version - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inappropriate promotional bio with negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC).
 * delete  full of uncited claims bordering on self promotion. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although her book is reasonably highly cited, her academic career appears to consist of a series of short-term teaching posts and she fails WP:PROF, and there's no indication that she meets the GNG as an architect. If you removed the unsourced and promotional claims then there would quite literally be nothing left. Joe Roe (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a lack of independent reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:GNG.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We generally require that someone should be an enduring part of the historical record that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Some of the sources seem to be local press (one of them is about a school field trip (!?)), press releases, and other low-quality sources.  As an academic, the relevant guideline is WP:PROF, and I do not see a pass of any of the criteria listed there.  In particular, the basic test is to look at citation counts.  While her book gets a few hundred citations, this is the only relatively high-impact publication that she has to her name.  So, I don't see a pass of C1, and the sources that have recently been added do not apparently meet the remaining criteria listed there.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are about school field trips, or local press. Considering that she has a whole body of work and is cited about her work with a particular aspect of architecture (branding), She merits inclusion in Wiki. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, in the sources provided, I do not see evidence of a pass under WP:PROF. Some of the sources do indeed seem like local press (e.g., https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-383619897.html, https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-400854633.html).  Away from access at the moment, but one of these is indeed about a field trip.  So, rather trivial ephemera, and not the kind of person noteworthy for an encyclopedia article.  E.g., winning major architecture awards, a substantial body of work that appears in reliable secondary sources like books on architecture.  See WP:CREATIVE.  Those are the kinds of sources that are required to establish notability of a living person.   S ławomir  Biały  01:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused: neither of those article are about a field trip. Arab News is about the the proposal to create an artistic/historic heritage project in Asir. So is this article. Is it possible you have a different definition of "field trip" than I do? In America, we take school-aged students on "field trips" to visit various places. This does not come up in any of the articles I cited. So I am very confused by your criticism. In addition, we do have critical reception and non-trivial coverage of Klingmann in Building Design, Architectural Record and the Futurist. Her concepts (brandism and brandscape) are referenced and discussed in several books, a few of which I cited in the article. Also, I'm not saying she passes PROF or CREATIVE. I'm saying she passes the GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk)
 * Several comments: (1) Just because something verifiably exists does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. As a creative professional (or an academic), we have guidelines to ascertain whether an article about that person is appropriate in an encyclopedia.  Those guidelines are WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF, respectively.  (2) Most of the cited sources are primary sources, like news media and press releases, rather than secondary sources, like peer-reviewed literature discussing the subject's architectural work and/or contributions to academia.  WP:GNG explicitly requires reliable secondary sources.  See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for an indication of the kind of sources that are generally acceptable for use in an encyclopedia.  Typically good secondary sources are peer-reviewed, and indexed by Google Scholar.  I do not see any evidence of such sources.  If you want to argue WP:GNG, you need much better sources than these.  (3) Finally, the intention of WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF is that these are supposed to be a weaker bar than GNG.  Failing these, but somehow "passing" GNG should set off alarm bells.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To assess new sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs cleanup, but everyone who !voted Delete, in my opinion did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. She is the chair of the architectural program at Dar Al-Hekma University. She is written up in Architectural Record March 2008, Arab News, Again, Arab News, in Building Design, review of her work in the Futurist, she's in non-English language news and a Google Book search turns up her name. I'll see if I can work on the article later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At present it has literally 0 RSes, so feel free to start it from yours up :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I rewrote the article using the sources I found,, if you'd like to take another look. :) I wasn't able to use any of the German language sources... I couldn't decipher them with Google Translate and I'm worried they may be talking about another Klingmann entirely. I think the sources I provide in the article establish notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to good work from Megalibrarygirl. They look like RSs to me. I do note that I can't access some due to subscription requirements. Many of the sources I can access are in-depth enough to make this person meet WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 08:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep now, nice one - everyone else happy with the new version? The old material is now on talk if anyone can find sources for claims - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG (and demonstrates that). Thincat (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Per and her excellent work.♦  Dr. Blofeld  19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, article reflects this, thanks to . Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, is this a "speedy keep" now that the nominator,, has apparently withdrawn their nomination? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably better to have it assessed as being the consensus - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * no probs. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the improved content and new sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, now clearly demonstrates a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, in the current improved state, the article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.