Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudi Dollmayer (model)


 * 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Rudi Dollmayer (model)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, only coverage, and even that is very limited, has to do with the sexual abuse charges, so WP:BIO1E would apply. But not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Might be an attempt at promotion, as the inclusion of the agencies he is currently with.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with the subject of the article in any way. Being highly interested in fashion, I was curious as to why a model in many memorable advertisement campaigns didn't have a Wikipedia page and decided to make one addressing the topic. Please list the rules where it states it is against policy to provide a said person's agency page. That's like suggesting that providing links to a famous figure's personal website is forbidden, which it is not, as seen in Marcus Schenkenberg and countless other Wikipedia pages. I cited the agencies I could find under Dollmayer's listing to prove the validity of identity and to prove the provided article information correct since the article lists which known agencies he appears to be with (as do all model Wikipedia pages). I assure you I am not attempting to abuse any concrete policies Wikipedia has. Please list exactly what's wrong with the citations, or which ones you would prefer to be removed if they don't meet the standard. I am fully willing to comply and make the changes necessary so that the article will be deemed acceptable. Due to your complaint, I have provided further citations but this still doesn't appear to be sufficient for you. Please state exactly what can be done so the article can be redeemed. Also please refer to my talk response in the article (as requested) for my explanations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvdoglover (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO by a wide margin. None of the sources are any good, nor can I find any. Some of them are plainly not independent, one is a Getty image, and the rest are not about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Timberlack (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockstrike. Blablubbs | talk 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete – the sources in the article are trivial mentions or advertising, and I could find nothing better. To answer 's question about what the article needs in order to be kept, WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I don't see that any of the sources present in the article meet all four criteria, nor did I find any such sources by searching. Wham2001 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If it does not meet the criteria, then please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvdoglover (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (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.