Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerstin Günther

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 speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerstin Günther

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dr. Blofeld with the following rationale "remove BS tags" (Sigh. Dear Doctor, as much as I respect you - and you know I do - please refrain from calling my judgement BS in the future, if you'd be so kind). He provided two additional sources at User_talk:Ipigott#Proposed_deletion_of_Kerstin_G.C3.BCnther, unfortunately I do not consider one reliable, and the other is a 404. For the source I could access, let me repeat: Executive profile at Bloomberg indicates exactly nothing, unless you can argue that being included in this database is sufficient for notability somehow (for me it looks like sufficient to prove one is a mildly successful businessperson, but that's not enough for being in an encyclopedia). If anyone can find in-depth, independent and reliable coverage of that person, please share it here. Thanks, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I really appreciate the trouble editors like Piotrus go to in order to ensure new articles meet the minimum standards for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially in connection with the biographies of living people, I think in this case the call for deletion is rather surprising. The article about Kerstin Günther formed part of the recent two-week editathon under WikiProject Women in Red which was designed to redress the lack of coverage of women in leadership. Günther stood out as one of the most successful women executives in Europe, not only because of her current positions as a senior vice president in Deutsche Telekom (one of the world's largest telephone and telecommunications companies) and chair of the Hungarian Magyar Telekom but as a result of her successful promotions in a male-dominated sector over the past 20 years. I believe the sources currently listed in the article clearly demonstrate her notability. In particular, her inclusion in the Inspiring fifty site confirms her status as one of Europe's most successful business executives today. In my opinion, if this article is considered unsuitable for Wikipedia, then most of the other biographies I have created over the past two weeks should also be candidates for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Can you tell us which sources discuss her in depth? I do not read German, but in most sources used as refs she appears in passing. Only zeit.de and spiegel.de seem so far to be more in-depth. Now, those two are reliable and if the Zeit one is indeed focused on her, I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable businessperson if you really look about for sources. I'm afraid to say Piotrus that you've joined the low ranks of the typical offenders in this particularly pointy nom. This woman has held executive positions in some of the most notable telecommunications companies. So yes, I stick by my original statement that it's utter bullshit that she's not notable. She has coverage in most of the major German newspapers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the two above, I think this is a keep. This is a notable executive in large telcos and should have an article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Coverage in reliable sources has clearly been demonstrated and there's too much to do on here to fuss over this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for sources shows plenty, some of which are given in the article, as would be expected for a senior executive like this. The Spiegel interview is a strong indicator. Clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, Notable. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm perplexed why you don't feel that the foreign language references support her notability, and why Bloomberg, an American reference, seems so important. I value your opinion but I don't understand your point of view on this AfD. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: I have nothing against foreign language sources; but based on what was said about them and on what I see, as I said elsewhere here, most of them seem to be mentions in passing. And no, I don't value Bloomberg more than others; again as I said elsewhere here I am in fact asking why others do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. The rationale that she might not meet "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" is totally unfounded. Multiple German articles confirm her business acumin but even English sources Bloomberg clearly show the depth of her experience. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment, and I just want to add that Bloomberg is "regarded as a staple in the business world" [1] and is "known for its savvy business reporting" [2] SusunW (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not Bloomberg reporting (if she had a Bloomberg report on her, I'd withdrew this nom in the instant). This is Bloomberg Executive Profile page, and I cannot find any information how one gets included there, thus preventing me from accepting it as a reliable source - for all I know it may be as reliable as a random wikia. (Sure, I may be wrong - then please tell me how does one get added to this list, what are the screening criteria, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I am a wee bit perplexed. If you click on tab on the left which says snapshot, it gives the business profile. If you click on the tab on the right it says people and gives entire profiles on all of the board members etc. from (see asterisked comment) "Data is at least as current as the most recent Definitive Proxy." Are you honestly saying that Bloomberg prepared the corporate profile and allowed someone else to provide the people profiles on their system? It makes no sense that they would vet the company and not the board members. SusunW (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW Thank you for the explanation. I accept that this page is reliable, but I still would like to learn about the criteria on who makes it in this list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus Please remove your tag. Can you not see that there is absolutely no support for deletion? Highly experienced editors including Rosiestep, Aymatth2 and Dr. Blofeld have confirmed notability. Furthermore, the article has been expanded with additional sources since your first alert. It is certainly not fair to the person in question to pretend she is not notable. This is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation for bias against women. If you want to investigate the authenticity of Bloomberg, then please do so elsewhere.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: The tag can be removed as soon as the deletion is closed, and it looks to me like both will happen soon, with a verdict to keep. I am not ready to remove it myself, as nobody has yet replied to my question to you from 12:35, 21 September 2015. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:, you don't even need the Bloomberg inclusion info to satisfy GNG. Der Spiegel is such a major publication that my Texas library carries a subscription. If you are looking for criteria for inclusion in that Bloomberg area, you would be best off hitting up a specialist librarian with a business background. Also, EBSCO database carries full text to Library Journal which should cover that topic somewhere. There is also a special division of the American Library Association dedicated to dealing with specialized reference questions. All of these resources are freely available at most libraries and you can email ALA. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: In answer to your question, yes, the articles from Die Zeit, Der Spiegel and Die Welt all provide substantial background on Kerstin Günther.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in fact snow keep. IF this was a WP article with the above editors, this is a notable subject. Sources adequate, notability established. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am going to AGF Ipigott's assessment, and therefore withdraw this nomination. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 28 September 2015 (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.