Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Zeumer


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Zeumer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Questionable notability and has become a ridiculous, laughable edit war. This should be speedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FG Fox (talk • contribs) 23:50, January 22, 2009
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete It would be a lot of work to make this into a real article. The version from 15 January reads like a press release from the subject. The current greatly-reduced version is so sketchy that the subject does not appear notable. (Ref. 5 of the earlier version is to a book by Zeumer that seems to never have been published). It is already worrisome that the top Google hit for Thomas Zeumer is this Wikipedia article. The first reference in the current article (in German) is a blog article describing a party that Zeumer helped to organize in Venice. The blog article, perhaps not a reliable source anyway, doesn't give us any useful info about him. Unless someone has time to to a lot of digging for sources I'd suggest there is no evidence of notability so far. One comment on a web forum asserts that "Most important is to remember that Metropolitan Germany is unrelated to Michel Levaton's legit agency in Paris (and don't get fooled by the German website which is a plagiat of the legit website, even the logo is imitated to fool people)." We have no idea if Zeumer's 'Metropolitan Models' is the real Paris agency that discovered Claudia Schiffer. Ref. 2 of our article doesn't give any evidence that this *American* Metropolitan Models is the same as either of the European ones. All it shows is that Zeumer was an executive of a New-York based modelling agency of that name. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - unless we can verify something here, we must delete the whole mess. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. These sources would appear to confirm the link to Claudia Schiffer. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is short enough that rewriting is not that big of an issue. Per BLP - do no harm - I question the prominence of the lawsuit. The previous version linked above is actually a good start once the POV gushy bits are cleaned off. There was also at least one good article source deleted from there as well. There likely is plenty of reliable sources although many of them are industry-specific so digging them up will take work. I also notice a bunch in other languages so translating them may also be needed. I'm inclined to keep but the exceptional claims tying him to top models will need to be sourced even if they are likely true. -- Banj e  b oi   10:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind if this article were re-created later, but the current sources are practically worthless. (All two of them). The German society-page writeup (Ref. 1) is itself only a blog entry. Ref. 2 is from a page of the Daily News called 'Gossip.' It recites the bare facts of the lawsuit, and one doubts that anyone did any research to figure out whether Zeumer had an actual role in the careers of those well-known models. I agree that it's not essential to include the lawsuit in the article, since it seems that the defendants were a very large and mixed group (possibly all the important modelling agencies that were active in New York at the time). But if you drop the lawsuit, there goes Ref. 2, and we know that Ref. 1 is not a reliable source. Where to next? EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A previous version of the article had more sources - there was at least one that was fine. In other searches his name popped up at the New York Times and multiple hits in other languages. What we really need is a good magazine article about him/his work and I have little doubt that such may exist. Personally I don't know the modeling industry enough to find the industry sources that discuss him. I think he is notable, I believe the connections to all these notable models and stars but proving that is another issue altogether. -- Banj e  b oi
 * If you go back to the 15 January version of the article, I'm sincerely curious which of these references you think is a WP:RS and is usable. His book would be interesting if it existed, but it is unavailable and (one assumes) never published. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, does it matter? If we simply can't verify enough of the notable stuff, all that's left is one scandal which would seem to fall short on BLP. 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis that Metropolitan Models does not have a Wikipedia entry, so we can not assume it notable, and consequently have no reason to think its CEO likely to be notable either. As for the prominence in the fashion world asserted in earlier version, it seems unsourced, but there should easily be sources for this if its real. The BLP problem is real--such an offense does not make him notable in himself, even if he were convicted, and probably should be removed as disproportionate weight even if sources are found to show that he and his firm are in fact notable. DGG (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the sources that have come to light recently linking him to these models are great but there's not enough and the lawsuit info that has sparked the edit war bringing us to this AfD discussion is bogus at best. Unless this is rewritten and protected, it's a waste of time, space, and effort.  FG Fox (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (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.