Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thea Dorn


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thea Dorn
WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) style="color: rgb(255, 10, 0);"> Humphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per reasons in Articles for deletion/Gerhard Anna Concic-Kaucic. - Fan-1967 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Copied from article mentioned:
 * ... per what appear to be a series of bad faith noms. Nominator has targeted several German authors as "WP:NN and WP:VAIN" despite the fact that all get thousands of google hits, and none show any indication of having been self-authored. Some sort of WP:POINT going on here? Fan-1967 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad faith? I thought we weren't supposed to assume that. My concern is indeed that some of these sites are self-authored (and vain). Perhaps reworking some of them is the better way to go, perhaps not. That's why I called for this discussion. (None show any indication of having been self-authored? Really?) I would urge further editors to look at the sites. I'm not invested in these articles being deleted, I just am calling for discussion. Don't appreciate being characterized as someone 'targeting' authors. Universitytruth 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is your reasoning behind calling them self-authored, then? In this particular case, the article's creator has several hundred edits and has created a number of articles (quite aside from giving his name, which is not "Thea Dorn").  I stop short of calling the nominations bad faith, but if nom's intent is to improve articles, he's misusing the AfD process to do it.  Chalk me up as a Keep until nom has some genuine evidence.  RGTraynor 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article's creator is actually the article's translator, but my search of the German site indicates that the article also had several editors there, so seems legitimate after all. Will be glad to improve the article myself at this point. Sorry if I shot the AfD gun too quickly. I think I was confusing (1) whether an article should exist in wikipedia and (2) whether any published German writer should belong on a list of German 'authors'. That is, my concern to distinguish between the Herman Melvilles and the Dan Browns of German lit led me astray. (This is not to say that I would not include Dan Brown, just that that might be an issue internal to the talk page of the relevant list, rather than an AfD. I see that now.) Universitytruth 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Amazon.de sales rank in the 80'000s, no translations, best Amazon.com sales rank: none. No call on this one. ~ trialsanderrors 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Has won the German Crime Prize, an established award notable enough for Amazon.de to have a special feature on it. Oldelpaso 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep She has a reasonable entry at imdb David <span
 * Retract nom per evidence listed above. Universitytruth 14:04, 6 July 2006 (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.