Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Motschmann

:{{la|Alexandra Motschmann}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra_Motschmann Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Alexandra Motschmann}})

Nominating for AfD after PROD was removed by {{U|Megalibrarygirl}} including after it was endorsed by Plutonium27. I still echo and confirm my original PROD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandra_Motschmann&oldid=694785168 here] and I should also note this article was actually deleted twice in 2005 at [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Motschmann German Wiki] apparently at the exact time this English Wiki article was started (first time at both De. and En. Wikis were December 5, 2005), so that also questions this article. If this can actually be kept and better improved, anyone should feel welcome as this looks like a classic 2005-2007 Wiki article, but all signs are suggesting there's no considerable improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I deprodded because no improvement over time is not a reason to delete. I stand by that, {{u|SwisterTwister}}. I believe Wikipedia is better served by improving and sourcing more articles rather than deleting--unless there is no other recourse. In my participation in AfD, I have seen several articles marked by various editors as "no room for improvement" or "no sources found" which later went on to be significantly sourced by other editors and saved from the deletion process. Because of this, I am skeptical of the claim that there is no room for improvement and I welcome the article in the AfD process instead of speedy delete. I hope that this AfD will bring more eyes to the article which needs someone who is fluent in German. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

::Comment I've removed unsourced material and added some references. I'm not fluent in German though, so I'm not sure of her notability still. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

::: "I welcome the article in the AfD process instead of speedy delete." This article was nominated for WP:Proposed deletion not WP:Speedy deletion. There is a marked difference between the two. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

::::Sorry, {{u|Plutonium27}} for not using the right terminology--I think you know what I meant, though. I felt that this article would be better served by more eyes than just silently deleting through the "prod" process, that's all. I was hoping that someone might know whether any of the sources I found were notable or not. Seems like there aren't, but I'm glad it had others looking at it to be sure. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - much better after {{u|Megalibrarygirl}}'s work, but I'm not seeing the notability. News produced a single hit, which was a short paragraph about her; Newspapers returned zip; Scholar returned 3 hits, all with zero citations; Books only had links to two of her works; and Highbeam also had zero. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete No indication that she passes the general notability guidelines for poets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I endorsed the proposed deletion. The subject is not notable and these efforts to show otherwise seem to have been more about making a point than applying objective policy. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC).
• Delete Sadly, no evidence of notability. While I will agree with {{u|Megalibrarygirl}} that "Wikipedia is better served by improving and sourcing more articles rather than deleting", this article appears to fail WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications come forward at a later date. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.