Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Teege

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 keep. Whether to move to the title of her book can be discussed further on the article talk page. Sandstein 11:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Teege

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

Non-notable person. A minor German writer who happens to be the grandchild of a Nazi war criminal. Not significant enough to warrant an independent article. The page should be deleted O.R.^Comms 13:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." = Washington Post; London Times; Seattle Times; BBC; Deutche Welle reviews. Duckduckstop (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This matter has come up on Wikipedia before, i.e. whether or not we should have articles for the children and grandchildren of Nazi war criminals. With very few exceptions, the answer is generally no. Also there are WP:BLP concerns when articles begin appearing on Wikipedia about living relatives of major Nazis. -O.R.^Comms 16:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a notablilty policy trumps your list article's deletion 4 years ago; sorry for your loss. perhaps you should review notability policy before nominating other articles, lest this come up before admins. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to report what you like to administrators. In general, AfDs nominators who act in good faith are not subject to any sort of punitive action. -O.R.^Comms 19:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:GNG nearly all the citations are not independent of the subject. Also potentially promotional. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that her book has received reviews in various sources like the Washington Post, Seattle Times, MacLean's, Irish Times, and the Jewish Book Council, all places that are considered to be reliable sources. Some of other sources appear to be about the basic gist of her discovering who her grandfather was, but they are also in RS: BBC, NBC, and People. People would probably be considered a little tabloid-y, but it's still considered a RS. Sixth&I and DW appear to be unusable for various reasons. Now if it was just the news articles about her discovering her heritage then I'd argue for a firm delete, but she has written a book about this that has received coverage and the reviews for that are enough to push her into notability territory, if only just so. The question we need to ask right now is this: would it be better to have an article on the author or one on the book itself? A book article would be a bit tidier, although since there's already an article about the author we could probably just add this information into the article that's already existent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable per reliable third-party sources. Being a book author who's a relative of the major Nazi war criminal on her biological mother's side (she placed her in foster care at the age of three) makes the whole affair exponentially more interesting actually. Her memoir is a bestseller in Germany, says Macleans. This AfD must be a misunderstanding. Poeticbent talk 18:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. This nomination appears to be based on a common misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED. NOTINHERITED states that having a more-famous relative and having your own notability based on a connection to that relative is not by itself a sufficient condition for notability. But neither is it a sufficient condition for non-notability; it's still possible in such cases to have independent notability, gained in the usual way through stories about you or your works. And the subject here clearly has such notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Clearly notable per reliable sources mentioned above by Tokyogirl79 as well as many other sources here. Agree that this is not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. She is notable on her own as an author. In response to the question by Tokyogirl79, maybe just keep this article on the author for now, rather than change it to an article on the book. Easier to add to it later if author writes more in the future. ABF99 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME to My Grandfather Would Have Shot Me as clearly WP:AT the scope and coverage of the article is mostly about the book, and not the author per se. The Book is notable and properly referenced. The author apart from the book has very little content separate from what is necessary for the book. So the article, as it is written is not a biography, it is a book article. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Poeticbent. KConWiki (talk) 01:39, 24 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.