Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margarete Gallinat

Margarete Gallinat

Margarete Gallinat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. I found very few reliable sources and only trivial mentions in those. Also potentially a WP:BLP. Staberinde (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Staberinde (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. She shows up as a guard in many | Google Book search results, so the claim that she was a concentration camp guard is not controversial or new. Google book results, along with the role, also establish her as notable.New Media Theorist (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct book search would be something like that: [1], which gives far less results. And simply establishing that person existed is not sufficient. There needs to be significant coverage to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

CommentI added numerous references, and even found her birth date in a Dutch PhD thesis form the UNiversity of Amsterdam. I think she's notable per WP:GNG, and this may also be a case of many references being pre-internet, seeing as the events she is notable for occurred 70 years ago. Also, per the birth date, she would be 119 years old now, so there are likely no WP:BLP issues.New Media Theorist (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: on basis of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, I agree the article is meagre. Quis separabit? 21:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Relist Comment - I originally closed as Keep but the nominator wanted addition input here (which I agree with!) so I've reopened and relisted this. –Davey2010^Talk 15:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs work, but her name does show up a lot, including in some non English sources. I think most sources on her are probably offline. That said, there are enough sources in article already to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Although the article had zero sources when first brought to AFD, it has now been sourced adequately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep -- Currently it is a bad stub. I am left asking what happened to her after 1945, when many concentration camp guards were tried and executed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This is starting to look like WP:SNOW, time to close?New Media Theorist (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)