Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon von Gerkan


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Manon von Gerkan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Fails WP:BIO (the refs and links include nothing resembling substantive coverage), and this is just a glorified list entry. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. She seems to be a well-known model - 108 Gnews hits and 20,000 general Google hits, Sports Illustrated model, Victoria's Secret model, has been represented by a number of agencies and has appeared in notable ads, notable magazines, and at notable fashion shows   --  Boing!   said Zebedee  20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG and seems to have claims to notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Imdb link makes article meet basic criteria of WP:BIO. Improve the article with information from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_von_Gerkan instead? --195.139.241.141 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In addition to the reasons people have already listed, her career as an actress has seen a resurgence in recent years. Just because an article is at a very basic stub status does not make the subject matter of that article non-notable. Fish Man (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are nowhere near sufficient to meet the dual test of reliability and significant coverage. What has been presented so far?This is a PR profile - who knows who puts the information on there; this has no meaning; this has no content; and it is well established that IMDB is not reliable. We cannot have a reliable article about this subject because there is no coverage in reliable sources. An encyclopaedia is only as good as its sources. That's why reliability must be given its proper weight in WP:GNG. Still awaiting any genuine coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about the depth and reliability of the sources in the article. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - Notable three times over as a prominent model (both glamour and swimsuit), jewellery designer, and partner of David Blaine. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources: Harper's Bazaar (this one, admittedly, may be a straight copy of a press release), The Evening Standard (a character piece), International Herald-Tribune (paparazzi style coverage, her appearance in it isn't apparent from the summary but she's mentioned as a person of note), New York Post (more on her design label), The Sunday Mirror, New York Post (again, in a different context).  And so forth.  I'm not sure how anyone who's done good faith searches could assert she doesn't pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sofixit. As the article stands, it is an unreliable BLP and must go. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review Wikipedia's deletion policy, specifically the section relating to valid reasons for deletion, and the biographies of living people policy. Unsourced material on BLPs is only subject to arbitrary deletion where it is contentious, and that's to be done on a statement-by-statement basis, not at the whole-of-article level.  Unsourced BLP isn't a reason to delete the article.  In a worst case scenario the article can be trimmed of unsourced content to become a stub reading, "Manon von Gerkan is a prominent model who has been featured in Swimsuit Illustrated and the catalogues of Victoria's Secret.  She runs a jewellery design label and is a former partner of magician David Blaine."  An AfD delete is not the appropriate response to a lack of sources, where evidence is shown that sources do exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, so after this AfD closes keep, who is going to source it? The Article Rescue Squadron sure hasn't come to the party. As WP:BLP states, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." After 3 years since creation, and 7 days listing here, the chances of improvement or rectification have reached the end of the line. If you want to do the job, go ahead and I'll happily !vote keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you object in good faith to material in the article, per WP:BLP you're perfectly entitled to personally trim it down to the stub text I provided above, or such larger amount of content as is non-contentious. If you don't seriously dispute any of the information then per WP:V it's not required to be sourced. I understand your position; it's an argument I've made in the past, but I've since been directed to the relevant policy positions on this and after a careful reading it's pretty unambiguous. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And likewise I've argued in favour of eventualism in the past, only to realise it just isn't working (and clearly isn't in this case). I'm all for a stubbification here if it's sourced well. Heck I'd do it myself if I wasn't at work. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what, if the AfD passes as Keep with the article in its current form, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll make it my next project to source this one and bring it up to at least Start-class. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help source it and will probably be able to get to it tomorrow in fact. This is clearly going keep so we may as well improve the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2010 (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.