Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doris Egbring-Kahn (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Egbring-Kahn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: this illiterate stub was AFDed once and closed and no consensus. Intolerable result which must be rectified. Complete lack of community interest confirms non-notability. Quis separabit? 04:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, the previous AfD discussion had two participants other than from the nominator, but after two relistings, the overall input was inadequate for a consensus to be determined. This counters the notion of "Complete lack of community interest confirms non-notability" stated in the nomination herein. Furthermore, lack of input at AfD discussions has no bearing whatsoever upon whether or not a topic is notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: actually the previous AfD discussion had one trivial comment and one keep vote. I meant no insult to @User:Northamerica1000's adjudication. I presumed there were at least a couple or so relistings, but the lack of more responses indicate to me at any rate a strong lack of community interest. The question of whether an AFD should be closed as "no consensus" if there is one keep vote and one delete vote varies depending on circumstances and admins, so perhaps there should be a more consistent approach. But, anyway, leaving this illiterate stub is just something that I feel strongly against. It should be sent back to the article creator's sandbox for improvement. Quis separabit? 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as yet on notability, but must point out that most of the claimed illiteracy could be fixed simply by moving a date, which I have done. It takes far less effort to fix such things than to whinge about them. The phrase "the Grandma" should also be changed to either "the grandma" or "Grandma". Maybe the nominator would like to make that choice? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear delete as both this and her listed filmography clearly show minor works and nothing amounting to actual substance since her works are so few, there's simply nothing else because there's no significance as an actress, and given she was only a rarely occasional actress, that's all there is. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating -- better editors than you have tried to get me blackballed. I very rarely renominate articles which survive AFDs. Since 2005, I can't remember doing so more than a handful of times, most recently Chris Nelson (director) and only when, as in this case and the Nelson case, I felt strongly (see IAR and BOLD). Incidentally, one (1) keep vote and one (1) delete vote after several relistings indicate a serious lack of community interest and the AFD should have succeeded.

So while you try to blame and shame the wrong editor "to end re-nominations by the same editor" -- something which, as I said, I have done maybe a handful of times to my recollection since 2005 -- which is why I didn't even know about WP:BEFORE -- perhaps you should concentrate on those who are genuinely abusing the procedures and protocols. Please include this reply in your "evidence file". Quis separabit? 18:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm redacting my comment because the purpose was a goal of improving the quality of AfD nominations. I don't plan to further respond in this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the 7-paragraph profile about her in 26 February 2011 Berliner Morgenpost, which I cited in the prior AfD [1], plus her long list of credits as noted in Agathoclea's keep !vote. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per what I said last time. Sad thing is that the actress was at her prime a stage actress, therefore sources about the bulk of her work will be print, not online. Agathoclea (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.