Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janni Spies


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Janni Spies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. red dogsix (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources in sv.wiki. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - And specifically those are? red dogsix (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on notability definitely a Keep. Based on quality of article I would be inclined to delete it and wait for somebody to come along and actually write an article. Examples om mentiones in media:, , . I could probably find thousands like that. --Harthacnut (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I can agree with Harthacnut about the sources. Problem was, I discovered Janni Spies as a RED link. I thought about it, and found *(if not thousands so atleast) some 100's of old tabloid stuff. However, is from a television interview or television documentary. Also the article on Simon Spies ought to be increased and improved. For around 5 years or so he participated more in the hippie-movement than run his travelling agency and Conair of Scandinavia. The article on Janni Spies was something of a stub or a beginning. But using point A6 in order to delete the article would be a gigantic error. I stopped at the point where she redrew herself from publish life. But it's not an exaggeration that she was the second most famous woman in Denmark from 1983 until the mid 90's. And she was well-known in many other nations. Boeing720 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Boeing720, but Harthacnut has a point about the quality of the article, so: Keep and improve. --Palnatoke (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It's always problematic without proper litterature. But this was a question of "notability", which surely doesn't lack in this case. Boeing720 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow keep and suggest nom withdraw the nomination. Despite the article having editorial challenges it never was a candidate for speedy deletion under A7 as . And no matter that a new user subsequently, WP:BEFORE is not optional and can hardly have been followed in this case. Had it been followed, nom would have noticed the thousands of online sources, among them are subject's entries in both Kraks Blå Bog and in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, which they erroneously identify as trivial. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * More inclined to keep - Although the article could be a little better (and I'm familiar with reddogsix's noms), (not being fluent with Danish) I think this can be kept given the sources and the "one of five wealthiest in Denmark" is notable. If there are more good sources, they're going to obviously be in Danish. SwisterTwister   talk  21:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment to User:reddogsix and Sam Sailor. I agree in most of Sailors criticism, but when I noticed the deletion proposal which I never have experienced in this way previously. There was explination at the talk-page (and my messages number showed ZERO). However I shouldn't have attempted to re-create the article as I did, I'm sorry, this may explain some of Your criticism, Sam Sailor. Part of it may be my fault. But not all. Is it too much to ask of for instance the reason to why this article suddenly was proposed to be deleted. And then finding out the proposal reason to be lack of notability is to me a bad joke. And I'm not even Danish. Boeing720 (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 - The day before this silly proposal, had the article indeed been patrolled without complaints by sign "GBL GBL", are such patrols entirely without matter ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2015 (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.