Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaela Merten

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Merten

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It turned out that the creator of the draft and the user who moved the draft to the main space is the same person (an both accounts have been blocked by now). The article is most certainly created for payment. The sources are not that strong, and, since it avoided scrutiny, we need to discuss whether the person is notable. Ymblanter (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rather distrust people like her, so this hurts: she does seem to make quite a splash in the media. Events involving her and her husband (she gets prime mention) can be found here in the Badische Zeitung [1], here in the Augsberger Allgemeine Zeitung [2] (behind a pay-wall so I didn't check it beyond the first few lines), and here in that paradigm of reliability, Bild [3]. Bild may not be reliable, but it shows that the public know who she is, and are interested in her. The article in its current form is rather an advert for her philosophy and activities, but she might be notable. Elemimele (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no info on her except her English WP article, German WP article, and her Facebook and LinkedIn pages. Definitely no independent sources. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 17:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Try searching in German sources; she is a German author and actress. In addition to the three newspaper articles I gave above, each of which talks prominently about her (Bild is roughly equivalent to the Daily Mail - it has an enormous circulation and influence, and its finger firmly on the pulse of public interest, despite its unreliability), Lisa Hellmanzik of the Cellezche Zeitung writes about her here [4], while as an actress she is credited to notable roles by the Berliner Zeitung here [5], and the Stuttgarter Zeitung shows her collecting a prize on behalf of another thing she appeared in here [6]. The Sueddeutscherzeitung has a big chunk on her here [7], Nachrichten.at has an article here [8]. I'm sorry these aren't in English. Google-translate might help. Many of them are major German newspapers, and the links weren't hard to find. Google really helps. Elemimele (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Lacks citations for major claims, cited sources do not support claim. Indisputable UPE, but sloppily and cheaply done. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a suggestion on this, but don't know if it's acceptable? @Vexations:, @JayPlaysStuff:, @Ymblanter:, would it be appropriate for me to delete the entire current content of the article apart from the photo, and replace it with a stub-like statement that she is a German actress and author, referenced from some of the newspaper sources that I've provided above? The reason I suggest this is that I believe she probably is notable (based on the quantity of newspaper references available), but I agree that the current article is a TNT case, inappropriately referenced and blatantly promotional. Her notability is a totally separate to the current atrocious state of the article. I didn't think it appropriate to reduce the current article to a properly-referenced stub while the AfD is in progress, unless there is consensus to do so. Elemimele (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I would say please do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Elemimele, If there is a way to improve the article, then please do so. I'm not sure that guest appearances in a number of Krimis really amount to a notable achievement as an actor.Her main claim to notability appears to be a leading role in de:Katrin ist die Beste. That German article is very poorly sourced, and I'm not sure if there is better coverage. I'll note that the SZ (a paper with a very good reputation) isn't shy to make uncritical mention of levitiertes Wasser. The German article about that notes that advertising therapeutic benefits of such water is illegal in Switzerland. Vexations (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Vexations:, @Ymblanter: I've done the deed. Obviously that shouldn't guarantee survival of the article (if consensus is that she's not notable, so be it). Also I admit the sources are mostly low-quality stuff, but that's typical of the sort of area for which she's known. The honest truth is that she's probably a bit-part actress who's notable for pedaling fringe-theories about water, but if you pedal fringe theories at the level of Bild, and get castigated by SZ, you're notable Elemimele (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, I would be fine with keeping the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous advertising. UPE spam. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem notable even after despamming. – SJ + 03:41, 8 September 2021 (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.