Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Indermaur


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Rebecca Indermaur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable actress, fails WP:ENT. None of the sources have any substantive information about her, they are mainly context-free credits listings in minor films (and her own Linkedin page, sheesh). Reywas92Talk 07:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Before nominating an article for deletion that is clearly a subject from a non-English speaking country, I would suggest searching for sources outside of English. Since the subject is a Swiss national, perhaps search for sources in German, French, Italian, and Romansh. Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia suggests that the nominator:
 * - Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.
 * - Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
 * - If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
 * - If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.


 * These steps were not done prior to the nomination. She has been written about in Swiss press and has had lead, supporting, and minor roles in Swiss films, not "minor films". Are they Hollywood productions? No, but they are clearly notable in Switzerland. Sennentuntschi and Heidi have articles on English Wikipedia and Die Käserei in Goldingen has an article on German Wikipedia. She had a lead role in the Swiss horror film The Shed (as reported here) and was the lead role in the world's first Romansh language television feature film, Amur senza fin (as reported here) which in itself seems like a qualifier for notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually I DID take those steps and because I speak German I could analyze those sources! I do not believe that because a film may be notable enough to have articles on English or German Wikipedias means that anyone who appears in those films is also notable unless there are substantive sources about that person. That's great that a TV movie was made for the first time in a language spoken by just 70,000 people, and I see why Swiss news covered this film, but in my opinion the sources are covering the film, not her as an actress, and she does meet notability standards. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear so. There was also no effort made on your part to improve before nominating. While it may not seem significant internationally, it is in Switzerland. And this article is about her as an actress and learning Romansh in order to perform the role. Hardly just about the film. Just because something isn't the focus of English press does not mean it isn't notable, regardles of your opinion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol it's not my job to improve an article I don't find notable; that just means AFD is not for article clean-up. And the "opinion" link is about original research in articles - of course all discussion pages are opinion-based! OK there's one short article in Switzerland's tabloid about her preparation for the film, that still doesn't pass GNG. Reywas92Talk 19:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't your job. But your focus should be on improving Wikipedia, and not having what feels like a personal vendetta against articles I've written or contributed to (not to mention the vast difference in tone you have used between conversations with other editors vs. conversations with me, but that's a discussion for another time and place). The opinion link does focus on original research in articles, as I am aware, but I linked it because you appear to be making an original analysis of the primary-source material regarding the subject. While yes, AFDs are opinion-based it is crucial to think about context. Blick is not a tabloid. While, in the early 2000s it was, the paper reverted back to a broadsheet daily newspaper in 2009. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NACTOR 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films- that has been met. Also coverage counts even if its a small country.   D r e a m Focus  21:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACTOR 1. I echo the points by Dream Focus and Willthacheerleader18. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Willthacheerleader18 above. There are numerous sources as he/she listed above that are not yet included in the article. Sources do not yet have to be in the article, but simply available. This article needs more sources put in the article and expansion, not deletion. Z359q (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Willthacheerleader18 above and the subject obeys WP:NACTOR. Kaizenify (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2019 (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.