Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Vogels

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Rebecca Vogels}})

I'm unconvinced that this individual is notable. I'm unable to find any substantial coverage about her in reliable sources myself. Reviewing the sources present reveals brief mentions e.g. in the "5 people to follow" and "Top 25" sources. The claim "Her work has been published in The New York Times" fails to stand up to scrutiny given that the article only quotes here alongside other reader's views. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. No in-depth sources, just trivial media mentions. Was the BLP created by a paid editor? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC).

::To answer my question: it was. Does the fee of 120 EUR get refunded if the article is deleted? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC).

:::No it does not, because I do clearly state that an article may get deleted. Best, Lingveno (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Paid editing is a scourge that must be wiped out, and is ipso facto promotional no matter how neutrally worded it may appear. The only sources about her rather than by her are themselves-promotional listicles. And nothing in the actual article content rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment from the main contributor. A popular Austrian technical magazine suggests that the article's subject is included in its list of top 25 female entrepreneurs. I myself changed my opinion and now think that the article's subject is barely notable and I could try to rewrite it on the base of the neutral third-party sources. There are a couple of sources which could help building a tiny cleaned up article. {{u|Smartse}}, your opinion? --Lingveno (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:*A subject is either notable or not. If they aren't then no amount of editing can make an article suitable for inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

::*Agree. --Lingveno (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Wow, this one is a triple threat. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG; they clearly don't meet WP:NAUTHOR; and I don't think I've ever seen an academician before who didn't get a single citation on google scholar, so they fail WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 6 April 2017 (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.