Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Pareigis


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit  03:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Jana Pareigis

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Keep, as I expanded the article and added non-primary, third-party sources. And even before that, I think the article should have simply been given a non-primary source hatnote instead of opening an AFD discussion.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism,  and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged for half-a year prominently at the very top huge template. Meaning nobody cared. Well, I know AfD is not a cleanup... - Altenmann >talk 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that no one cared about independent sources; It's rather that the subject of this article is not very well-known.
 * However, the hatnote was there, meaning the issue had already been pointed out, so there was no valid reason for starting an AFD discussion in the first place, at least in my opinion. Anyway, the article now contains independent sources, so I think the AFD should be closed now.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you have it upside down. Here how it normally goes in English Wikipedia: (1) Issue of notability pointed out (2) Was not addressed for half a year (3) AfD as nonnotable. (4) Should not be closed right away, because people have to verify other important criterion, namely "significant coverage". - Altenmann >talk 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason you gave for issuing the AFD was not a concern regarding notability, but the lack of independent sources, which is not the case anymore. If you now decide to change the reason for your proposed deletion to notability concerns, you should at least explain why you think that the relevance of the person is not sufficiently presented in the article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * DIE WELT, BUNTE.de - interviews - not an independent source per enwiki rules (although parts of such can be WP:RS)
 * DW 2013: "Jana Pareigis is one of the faces of DW's German-language journal" - not an independent source for notability purposes. This kind of profiles are common for various employers of media outlets regardless notability.
 * Same for BMZ and ZDF blurbs
 * DW 2017 : "In our film "Afro.Deutschland" she talks to black people in Germany about her experiences." - self-source
 * Berliner Morgenpost -- interview
 * ZEP - "Pareigis' foreword for German translation of James Baldwin's volume of essays
 * Reaffirming - no independent sources, sorry. - Altenmann >talk 19:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When saying independent sources, I was referring to the sources which were not from German public broadcasters, which is her employer.
 * Die Welt, Bunte, Berliner Morgenpost, and Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik are independent sources in this regard. The fact that she was involved in the creation of the articles by being interviewed does neither show a lack of neutrality (the magazines were free to ask her what they wanted, and the articles don't consist entirely of an interview, but also text sections about her in which they were free to write what they wanted) nor notability (when several well-known magazines in Germany publish an article containing an interview with her, it shows that she's a person of public interest in that country). Also, Independent sources does nowhere explicitly state that interviews in third-party magazines can't be considered independent sources by Wikipedia standards. The guideline page states that "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." Both criteria are fine regarding said sources.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.