Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Netherlands

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spiderone (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 15 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dutch_Caribbean (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Netherlands. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Netherlands|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Netherlands. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Netherlands related AfDs

Scan for Netherlands related Prods
Scan for Netherlands related TfDs


Netherlands

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/procedural keep‎. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 16:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Caribbean

Dutch Caribbean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose that this article be deleted in its entirety for the following reasons:

1. No legal or political entity called “Dutch Caribbean” exists. The term is an informal geographic expression with no basis in international or Kingdom law. There is no official governing body or jurisdiction under this name.

2. Misrepresents the constitutional reality of the six territories. Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba are special municipalities of the Netherlands. These islands do not share a government, constitution, or legal framework.

3. Violates Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and verifiability. The article presents “Dutch Caribbean” as if it were a real entity, but provides no legal sources or primary references to support that framing. This misleads readers and contradicts Wikipedia’s standards.

4. The article has real-world consequences. It undermines the recognition of Curaçao and other countries as independent legal entities, causing confusion in international systems and reinforcing outdated colonial narratives.

5. The term should not be used at all. The article is built on a false premise. “Dutch Caribbean” inaccurately groups legally distinct and autonomous countries with Dutch special municipalities, creating a misleading political narrative. The term should not appear in relation to these islands at all — not even in passing — as it distorts their individual identities and legal status.

Conclusion: This article promotes a non-existent political entity and should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of the points made here support deleting a 14-year-old page:
1. "Dutch Caribbean" may not be a single legal entity, but it's a notable and widely used geographic and cultural term. WP routinely covers non-political groupings (e.g. Balkans, Scandinavia), and the article clarifies the components' distinct statuses.
2. It accurately details the differing constitutional realities, clearly distinguishing between the autonomous constituent countries and the special municipalities of the Netherlands. I don't see a misrepresentation here.
3. It looks well-sourced and neutrally presents the concept by explicitly explaining the distinct legal statuses of the islands; nowhere is it implied that the region is a unified political body.
4. It clearly explains the distinct statuses. Concerns about reinforcing narratives are subjective; the article primarily documents the factual situation.
5. The term "Dutch Caribbean" is common and notable; you haven't presented any evidence that it creates a "misleading political narrative". — Arcaist (contr—talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (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.
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. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pop (Dutch comedian)

Stefan Pop (Dutch comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing here is at best dubious: some theatrical database, a club and a festival. The subject is likely associated with all three; all three are promotional blurbs. Independent coverage is glaringly absent. — Biruitorul Talk 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ugly side of Wikipedia. The sources used are qualitative in nature. But to satisfy you I have used a few more sources from the largest newspapers in the Netherlands. I also do not appreciate that you insinuate that I am in any way connected to Stefan Pop. Coriovallum (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of articles available, but they are mostly connected to the recent sketch and a recent incident in Lubach. But there is for example this interview, which signals some notability. Dajasj (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No lack of sources whatsoever to satisfy the GNG. Nomination was focused on references (even though it uses the term "sourcing") in clear defiance of NEXIST. Also please rename to Stefan Pop, with the Romanian tenor at Ștefan Pop. No disambiguation page and dabs needed for just two people with names spelled differently. gidonb (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:51, 18 April 2025 (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.
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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ExitMundi.nl

ExitMundi.nl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently defunct website. After a prod almost twenty years ago, a bit of uncited and unsourced content was slapped on carelessly, with some evidence of COI or at least NPOV violation. I am inclined to say that notability was never established. Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- somewhat confused by this nomination: four reliable news sources are cited, even though one is a 404. That establishes clear notability by the GNG -- it is irrelevant whether the website is now defunct. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion, but I actually think it would be best if this would be part of an article about Maarten Keulemans (which is now a redirect). Maarten Keulemans has become sufficiently notable since the article about ExitMundi.nl was written. Dajasj (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as FRINGE failing the GNG. Maybe Maarten Keulemans passes the GNG. He had the stories of this website bundled into a book, regardless won a prize, and did other stuff. I can't say for sure until I see it. gidonb (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense, which warns against undue weight in articles not about the "fringe" topic – there can't be undue weight on the subject of the article. Also, as far as I can tell, this site/book/project was supposed to be art or entertainment, not a genuine doomsday cult. Toadspike [Talk] 14:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, the text in sources 2 and 3 is about as long as the text of the nomination above, both brief. The other two don't open, so that's no help. The website is mentioned twice in trivial mentions in Gbooks, this for example [1]. We don't have anything extensive, I don't think these are enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the last snapshots was in 2023 from the Wayback Machine [2], I'm not even sure we'd consider it a reliable source RS for use here, not sure how that affects notability, but it would be classified as a blog today. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting AfD per request from User:Toadspike,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This review [3] is sigcov of a reading of this work by a German performer. Similar reviews here [4] and an article from the same paper (Der Bund) around the same time titled "Weltuntergangsschlagzeuger Bela B." by Gisela Feuz that I can't find online, but is in my newspaper database. This source [5] seems to have a paragraph of analysis of this subject at the end. There is a little bit in [6]. I'm not 100% certain here, but the coverage of this subject's various iterations (website, book, live performance) seem to add up to meet the GNG. If we don't keep this, I suggest redirecting to Bela B., where the subject is mentioned under "Acting and other ventures". Toadspike [Talk] 19:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toadspike. Obscure and odd but seemingly notable website. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above analysis by Toadspike and with that, WP:N met. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not really convinced by the sources in Toadspike's comment so much as their context. This isn't just a website; it also became a book, which has been translated into at least one other language, and a performance piece, which itself received reviews. The "work", as a whole, appears surely notable. I would prefer to redirect/merge this to the author's article, given that the sourcing we've found so far is pretty slim, but since that doesn't exist (yet), I'll have to !vote keep. -- asilvering (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2025 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theo van Zwieteren

Theo van Zwieteren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources in the article seem to provide WP:SIGCOV, and I was unable to find any on Google or newspaper archives such as Newspapers.com, Delpher, Archief Eemland, Stadsarchief Rotterdam, and Gallica. I did find some mentions like 1 and 2 using an abbreviation of his name ("T. van Zwieteren"), but nothing substantive. Another Dutch referee (albeit with much more international experience) from the same era, Raphaël van Praag, was recently kept after multiple in-depth sources were found using these same archives, so maybe someone else has more luck. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noooooo!!!! I was literally going to put this page on a draft tomorrow!! Couldn't you have waited just a few more hours!! Barr Theo (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barr Theo, Let'srun, and Clara A. Djalim, with the extra sources, can we settle for a keep? gidonb (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just copy my signature?! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a historically important referee, by WP:NEXIST and by the WP:GNG that is fully met. Theo van Zwieteren passed away in 1962, so no BLP concerns apply. The article was created by Barr Theo based on his historical significance, and that assessment holds.
I was recently pointed to this article by the creator and made several corrections—his date of birth, for example, was off by a day. This followed my overhaul of an article on Raphaël van Praag, a distant cousin I had never heard of before. Van Praag, who was also a gifted communicator, became Holland’s favorite son in Belgian soccer management. He left the field forever just before much of our family was exterminated.
Van Zwieteren’s international experience extended beyond the Netherlands, in international games, and during his residence in Hamburg. That, too, is worth exploring. The sources cited are from Delpher, which aggregates historical Dutch newspapers. This is the correct search string. For the Rotterdam region, I also check the Schiedam-based Krantenkijker, though it often yields less than Delpher.

These are sources that by themselves provide SIGCOV:

These are sources from which SIGCOV can be pieced together, a legitimate approach for historically important professionals (see the subsequent list):

These are sources that state Van Zwieteren's importance as a referee:

gidonb (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More than sufficient for me to a keep. Svartner (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Clariniie! I can take that. The last four sources are not in depth. These sources are significant because they talk to the importance of Van Zwieteren, i.e. the sources are important in a category other than SIGCOV. The first two sources are SIGCOV and the next four sources contribute toward SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: I'm pretty sure the first SIGCOV link you posted is the incorrect one as it consists of one sentence of coverage and is a duplicate of the Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad link below it. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting. I corrected that three minutes before your comment. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's very thin in my opinion, I am not quite sure it's at the level needed for what constitutes a good article for a biography. Feels thin, but maybe just enough for WP:BASIC. I would like to see it improved if possible. Govvy (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found additional sources:

These sources belong to my categories II and III above, often combined. With the previous we have a clear and complete pass of the GNG! We already had that yet these sources add even more material to use!!! gidonb (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2025 (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.
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. Consensus is to keep the content, with no prejudice against further discussion to merge the content into another article. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio in the Flemish Community

Radio in the Flemish Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This type of article is very common. To link a few: Radio in France, Radio in Germany, Radio in Austria and Radio in the Republic of Ireland. Concerning the notability of the Flemish Community: since Belgium is roughly split into two language regions, each region has its own set of radio stations. AllOriginalBubs (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AllOriginalBubs, the examples are from primary level national units. Do you claim that this level should be skipped in Belgium? gidonb (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The books mostly cover radio together with television (because in the past the broadcasters were the same) so a merge of radio and television could be possible. The journal articles do seem to cover them separately. I advocate for keeping them separate because the commercial radio stations aren't involved in television in most cases, a book has more place to cover things than a wikipage and because it is a different medium. Merging to a radio in Belgium article is also possible, but the sources do focus more on Flanders separately.Rolluik (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:03, 19 April 2025 (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.

Others

Requested Mergers

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Netherlands&oldid=1285750051"