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 FOARP (talk | contribs) at 12:17, 28 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Schmitt.). 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 no consensus‎ whether to retain or redirect, which does not require an additional relist. Language and age are issues which are not likely to be resolved in another week either. With a viable AtD, deletion is not particularly on the table. Star Mississippi 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Schmitt

Johan Schmitt (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)

LUGSTUB-a-like for a non-notable athlete who competed at the Olympic games, once. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE, though the fact that the name of the subject is literally the Dutch version of "John Smith" hardly helps. A search on RKD yields a single-paragraph description - not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Netherlands. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Netherlands at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics if there is no significant coverage. By the way, is RKD a reliable source? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RKD is certainly a reliable source for artists, not for gymnasts. An artist with an RKD entry is presumably notable. I assume that the article can be saved based on Schmitt`s notability as an artist. I´ll look into it in the next few days. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schmitt was part of the Dutch team that won a silver medal at the second World Gymnastics Championships in 1905. He came in 9th at the individual all around event that year. He was dutch national champion when the dutch team participated in the 1908 Summer Olympics. For these reasons, he explicitly meets WP:NGYMNAST. I have updated the article with this info. He also had formal training as an artist (drawing, sculpture) and was an accomplished musician (piano). A query at Delpher with the search term "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" renders over 200 hits in newspapers, magazines and books. I have not found a full biography but there are many references that show his activity as a gymnast, teacher, chairman of gymnastics associations, musician and drawer.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ruud Buitelaar, @Svartner - No individual medals were awarded at any gymnastics championships prior to 1922: they were purely team events (see page 76 here). At some point after 1922 (possibly as late as 2006 since the 1981 history doesn't mention it but the 2006 one does) scores were awarded retrospectively. A retrospectively-awarded score awarded years later is not the same as one received at the time for our purposes, since the coverage that surrounds winning a medal won't have happened.
    Team medals were awarded, but per WP:NTEAM, individuals don't inherit the notability of their team.
    Since Schmitt is such a common name, we cannot simply rely on numbers of hits as a source of coverage.
    I'm happy to withdraw if a single instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source (as is required for all sports biographies per WP:NSPORTS2022) can be produced for Schmitt, but not for single-sentence mentions that don't reach the SIGCOV standard. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Per Ruud Buitelaar analysis. The subject is notable considering beyond the sporting context. Svartner (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The preoccupation over whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not is misplaced, as per the overarching NSPORT guideline a source of IRS SIGCOV is required to be cited in the article for any presumptions of further GNG coverage existing to be applied. @Svartner @Ruud Buitelaar I've also looked through the Delpher archive and every single one of the 141 hits for "J. H. A. G. Schmitt" gymnastiek is either from in-house publications of orgs Schmitt belonged to (e.g. the "official organ" of the Dutch Olympic Committee, Zaan Gymnastics Association, etc.), or a passing mention:
    Non-independent:
  • (62 hits) Passing mentions in "Het turnblad; orgaan van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek Verbond": [1]
  • (1 hit) Passing mentions in "Tijdschrift van het Nederlandsch Gymnastiek-Verbond": [2]
  • (2 hits) KNGV announcement in "Olympic Day" (published by Dutch Olympics Committee) that says he will provide "piano accompaniment" at some KNGV event: [3]
  • (3 hits) Passing mentions in "De Revue der Sporten: Officieel Orgaan van het Nederlandsch Olympisch Comité": [4][5]
  • (2 hits) Passing mentions in "Algemeen Sportblad Voor N.-Holland: Officieel orgaan van den [...] Zaanschen Turnbond": [6][7]
  • (1 hit) An announcement in "Weekly of the General Dutch Diamond Workers' Union" by the Arbeiders Gymnastiek Vereeniging listing him as its director: [8]
  • (3 hits) Passing mentions in primary government "Report on the state of higher, secondary, and primary schools", e.g. By council resolution of 22 September, the municipal council appointed J. H. A. G. Schmitt as his successor for the current school year, who took up his position on 16 October. [9] and A periodic increase in annual salary was granted to J. H. A. G. Schmitt and Miss Dr. M. J. Baale.[10]
  • (5 hits) Announcements in "De lichamelijke opvoeding; orgaan van de Vereeniging van Gymnastiek-Onderwijzers (L. en M.O.) in Nederland" (official organ of the Association of Gymnastics Teachers): [11]
  • (2 hits) Passing mentions in "Nederlandsche sport: officiëel orgaan der [...] Nederl. Gymnastiek Verbond": [12][13]
  • (4 hits) His name in a list of Olympics entrants published repeatedly by the "De Sport" the "official organ of the Rotterdam Football Association": [14][15]
  • (1 hit) Apparently the alderman of the Amsterdam Gymnastics Association mentioned him as the former Association director and a current "musical accompanist at the ladies' practices" in a speech at an AGA celebration: [16]
Potentially independent, but trivial and/or primary:
  • (1 hit) Name in a list in "Sport en sportwereld": [17]
  • (52 hits) Name in a directory of grammar school teachers(??) in many "State Almanac" editions, e.g.: [18][19][20][21][22] (names in these lists are not deemed important enough to be in the index[23])
JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Nice job, @JoelleJay! I was just going through the same hits and, by and large, agree with your assessment that the vast majority, very close to 100%, are passing mentions. Whether or not the magazine of the Gymnastics Association is an independent source may be a matter of debate. In the article, I added a citation in Revue der Sporten that is rather critical of Mr Schmitt`s design of the poster for the 50th anniversary of the Association. I also cite a volume of Het Leven Geillustreerd, clearly an independent publication, dedicated to the same celebration, mentioning Schmitt as head organizer. Anyway, I made my point. I´ll make an entry for Schmitt in the Dutch Wikipedia so this information will not get lost if it is decided that the english version should be transformed in a redirect. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar, according to NSPORT governing sports bodies are not considered independent so that magazine and all the others that are "official organs" of sporting orgs are definitely not independent. While HLG does seem independent, all it has is a photo caption stating "The head instructor, JHAG Schmitt", which is not enough for SPORTSCRIT. Revue der Sporten was published by the Dutch Olympic Committee and so is also not independent. Good idea to add it to nl.wp though! JoelleJay (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hopefully the nl wiki generates more info. I found a newspaper article (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden), definitely independent, that reports in some detail that Schmitt organized workshops to introduce rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands in the 1920s. On these occasions he also played the piano. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. Per point 1 winning a medal at world championships and if he was also national champion in 1908(?) also per point 2. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep leaning to Keep: possibly meets point 2 of WP:NGYMNAST winning an individual national champion title in 1908(?). But also as introducer of rhythmic gymnastics in the Netherlands that is claimed in the article (didn't check the source) and as director of main gymnastics clubs. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NGYMNAST point 1 says (emphasis mine): Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition, so no, doesn't meet that with a team medal. Point 2 is for individual events. Also note JoelleJay's point that even if a subject meets NGYMNAST, at least one source is still required. I'm a bit reluctant to !vote on this one, considering Ruud Buitelaar's arguments above, but on the sourcing and the evidence, this looks like a reluctant redirect from me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes my fault. I missed it was a team event. I will adjust my vote. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @95.98.65.177, the more salient point here is that the article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV, which it does not. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a few more citations. The poor showing at the 1908 Summer Olympics did cause a stir and Schmitt got some heat. De Telegraaf, a leading Dutch newspaper, and several other newspapers reported about Schmitt´s leading role in organizing entertainment for the team, which was seen as a lack of attitude toward the games. We had missed those news articles because he is not mentioned as "J.H.A.G. Schmitt" but as "Joh. Schmitt". Indeed, as WP:NGYMNAST states, SIGCOV is likely to exist for people like Schmitt. I continue my search. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sirfurboy and @JoelleJay: All Wikipedia articles require multiple IR SIGCOV to pass GNG. Even only one provided is too weak and still not enough. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely correct. However subject notability guidelines often provide a refutable presumption that sources will exist based on some additional criteria, and articles are often kept based on such additional criteria. Here, the additional criteria would be WP:GYMNAST. But what WP:SPORTCRIT says is that, when relying on such additional criteria, there must still be at least one IRS SIGCOV source actually on the page. This, it specifically says, does not show that the subject is notable, but it is a minimum requirement for anyone relying on the additional criteria in the subject notability guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historical figure with unusually diverse accomplishments in gymnastics. Absolutely no BLP concern. Meets BASIC and HEY. Also, this article was created by User:Doma-w, not by User:Lugnuts! gidonb (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the required SIGCOV source? How does he even meet BASIC when all the coverage is primary and/or non-independent? This and this and this are primary accounts by attendees or eyewitnesses, this is a passing mention... JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gidonb - "this article was created by User:Doma-w", which is why the nomination says "Lugstub-a-like". And as disucssed, multiple instances of IRS SIGCOV are required here. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many Lugstubs. Why at all invoke this if an article is unrelated to Lugnuts? gidonb (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of keep !votes here, but unless I've missed it, no one's managed to find sigcov even still?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering The Netherlands Institute of Art History is a perfectly reliable, independent source. Schmitt´s biographical entry there provides significant information. That is one SIGCOV source. The article on the Dutch gymnastics team in London 1908, where Schmitt is signalled as the main culprit of the poor performance, was first published in the magazine of the Gymnastics Association, supposedly not an independent source, but then replicated in De Telegraaf, De Tijd, De Nieuwe Courant. They are independent, reliable sources. See also this discussion about, among other things, SIGCOV for topics over 100 years ago. The discussion also refers to WP:MULT to argue that redirect is not an option because Schmitt is notable for multiple events. I, for one, am extremely reluctant to delete lemma`s about people who lived over a century ago, for which we have indications that they are likely notable. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar, that Netherlands Institute of Art History entry is a database entry, not sigcov. No comment on the others as whether a newspaper article is sigcov or not is up to the discussion participants. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy, non-independent coverage does not become independent simply by being republished elsewhere. WP:MULT is not a policy or guideline and so is not an appropriate !vote rationale. We had a massive global consensus requiring sportsperson bios cite IRS SIGCOV, regardless of how old the topic is or how difficult potential sources are to access. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I striked my doubts and change to full Keep per WP:HEY and per WP:MULT as notable for multiple events indicated by Ruud Buitelaar. All coverage is from what I see reliable. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither HEY nor MULT is a valid keep rationale. The article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Out of the 300+ hits in Delpher, the article now has at least half a dozen of clippings from major Dutch newspapers in which Schmitt is mentioned, not in a trivial but in a significant way. I`d say we have more than enough SIGCOV. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources must also be independent, reliable and secondary, of course. News reports are generally primary. For instance, this one [24] tells us about a picture he has drawn. That is, the reporter has looked at the image, and reports on what they saw. It is an eye witness account, and although we can infer from this that the subject was a good painter but not so much a poster maker, and that he drew this specific picture, all the biographical information clearly relies on us doing our own analysis of that eyewitness account. It is primary, and thus does not count towards notability on English Wikipedia. Dutch Wikipedia has different rules, so it may be fine there (although I see that it has very similar rules to us on original research), but English Wikipedia requires secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they are listed as good arguments to make in deletion discussion. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is an essay. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there's enough info here considering that 1) the source material is foreign and limited and 2) it's over 100 years old. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per expansion and the arguments of several others above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1905 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships or somthing like this. I don't see much significnat coverage for a stand alone article. It is hard to get sources cosnidering the time frame. But if he was significant, he would be covered in gymnastics history books or articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Redirect I largely agree with the analysis of JoelleJay above. All of the independent mentions are passing and not sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV even if being generous. Having your name mentioned in a newspaper clipping, but not the subject of any real indepth coverage or analysis, seems to me to be a classic example of a "passing mention", so I disagree with the arguments that the clippings amount to significant coverage. He also did not win an individual medal, so that criterion of WP:NGYMNAST is not met. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 21:04, 14 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 redirect‎ to ChevoBeatz. Most of the keep !votes have been rebutted or were written by a robot that does not understand our guidelines, and we have a clear WP:ATD by redirecting to the artist's article as suggested by the first comment. Any editor is welcome to merge in content from the redirect history. asilvering (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shatta Gyal

Shatta Gyal (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)

Does not come close to meeting WP:NSONG. Sources are trivial mentions, promotional in nature, and/or from unreliable sites. The creator of the article also seems to be dealing with COI issues. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only has the song charted, but I did a brief source analysis. Covered in two seeminygly reputable Surinamese newspapers -- De West and De Ware Tijd, two newspapers with among the highest circulations in Suriname. We also have a tabloid-esque source in the Jamaica Star. With the charting and De West and De Ware Tijd, looks like notability guidelines are met. Not that is article doesn't have problems, it could be vastly improved, with grammar and NPOV. It looks like the nominator did not perform an adequate WP:BEFORE check.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AnonymousScholar49: I heard you'd appreciate the ping. Looking at the extent of the coverage about the song in those two sources:
    The talented Dutch music producer with Surinamese-Indian roots, ChevoBeatz, has made it to the Argentine Billboard 100 list with two songs. These are the songs 'Shatta Gyal' a collaboration with the dancehall artist FireVerse and 'Bamba' with the singer Chuma Afrika from Kenya. This milestone also received a notification on the platform of Billboard Argentina under the heading: 'ChevoBeatz explora fronteras musicales'. –De West
    The promising Surinamese-Dutch music producer ChevoBeatz has reached the Billboard Argentina Hot 100 list with his song 'Shatta Gyal', a collaboration with the Jamaican Dancehall artist FireVerse. The song was at the 87th position on the list. There is also a story dedicated to him in the Argentinean Billboard Magazine under the headline: 'ChevoBeatz explora fronteras musicales'. –De Ware Tijd
    They also both include eerily similar versions of the same text later on in the articles:
    In addition to his existing collaborations, he is looking for opportunities to work with more artists from all over the world. His passion for creating diverse and captivating music knows no bounds, and he is constantly trying to push the boundaries of his creative skills. –DW
    In addition to his existing collaborations, he is looking for opportunities to work with even more artists from all over the world. His passion for creating captivating music knows no bounds. ChevoBeatz is constantly trying to push the boundaries. –DWT
    Lastly, both articles feature similar photos, one of which is attributed to the "ChevoBeatz collection". Further analysis of the sources has convinced me that even these pieces from more established publications are more of the same explicitly promotional content. It also makes me kind of sad how much of this sort of paid content exists online in general. Alas... Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi JTtheOG, thanks for your thoughtful input.
    Regarding the concern about promotional content: you’re right that some of the sources have a tone that leans promotional, but that alone doesn’t disqualify the subject under Wikipedia’s notability standards. Per WP:GNG, what’s most important is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject — which this article does. Examples include DancehallMag, Jamaica Observer, and the Billboard Argentina charting, which indicate coverage beyond simple self-promotion or trivial mention.
    Even if the tone in parts of the article still needs refinement, that’s something that can and should be fixed editorially. Wikipedia policy WP:PRESERVE encourages improving content rather than deleting subjects that are notable but may need work.
    So while your concern is totally valid, there seems to be a solid foundation here for a neutral, encyclopedic article with further cleanup — not deletion.
    Alat Cheers! DataTrekker (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi DataTrekker; thank you for your input as well. DancehallMag is four sentences of direct coverage and Jamaica Observer is a single trivial mention. No matter their reliability or independence, they are not significant, in-depth coverage. As you correctly pointed out, GNG requires coverage that is independent, reliable, and significant. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, JTtheOG, totally fair to scrutinize the depth of coverage.
    That said, I’d argue the DancehallMag piece goes beyond a trivial mention. While brief, it offers unique commentary on the artist’s impact in reggae from a third-party perspective. Likewise, the Jamaica Observer coverage is not just a name-drop but ties into a broader cultural context. Per WP:SIGCOV, coverage doesn’t need to be lengthy — it just needs to examine the subject in some detail, which these do.
    Also, the subject’s charting on Billboard Argentina isn’t a mere stat — it reflects measurable cultural relevance, which Wikipedia recognizes as a notability indicator (see WP:NMUSIC). When combined with independent reporting, this points toward notability, even if some sources are concise.
    If tone or structure is the concern, let’s focus on cleanup. Deletion seems unnecessary when the base notability criteria are arguably met. DataTrekker (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. While the song charted on Billboard Argentina and Hype TV Jamaica, these achievements alone aren't notable. Most sources are promotional or trivial mentions, and there's no in-depth analysis of the song's impact or significance. Per WP:NSONG, notability requires more than just chart positions. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep – The coverage in DancehallMag and Jamaica Observer shows that the artist has received attention from independent sources that offer more than just brief mentions. These articles touch on the artist’s presence in the reggae/dancehall scene, indicating some level of critical or cultural interest. In addition, charting on Billboard Argentina points to measurable recognition outside of local or niche circles. While the article may benefit from cleanup, the core notability criteria under WP:NMUSIC appear to be met. Deletion doesn’t seem necessary here. ~~~~ 2001:1C0F:285:6E00:950F:5058:7FC8:42BF (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources have been addressed. Please log in to !vote as your comment looks very similar to others here. JTtheOG (talk) 17:30, 6 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 redirect‎ to House of Limburg-Stirum. There was discussion of another title, but without a notification there I cannot call consensus as to its fate. It can perhaps be redirected without controversy, however. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limburg-Styrum-Bronchhorst

Limburg-Styrum-Bronchhorst (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)

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. No sources, tagged as such since 2009. There is no article on this Dutch and German family on the Dutch or German wikipedias. Not sure if this exists AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this disambiguate to House_of_Limburg-Stirum? Czarking0 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources either - with a quick search - discussing this specific family Dajasj (talk) 07:19, 25 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of areas under control of an Overseas Country

List of areas under control of an Overseas Country (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)

Random selection of some islands which aren't independent, but not others (e.g. why include the Shetlands but not Northern Ireland; why Lord Howe Island but not Tasmania?; why not Åland, Svalbard, ...? ), plus a few non-islands and some very dubious entries (Alaska hasn't been "under control of an overseas country" since it was sold by Russia). The topic itself doesn't seem to be notable either. Fram (talk) 08:35, 24 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 no consensus‎. It looks like there's going to be no agreement on this, no other admins seems to want to close it (probably for fear of being yanked to deletion review by the participants) and despite the article being improved during the AfD, there's still no firm consensus on the sources being sufficient. A redirect was suggested as a compromise, but that didn't gain traction.

If anyone objects to this closure, I am happy to re-open for a further week to see if consensus becomes stronger in either direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard van den Bergh

Gerard van den Bergh (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)

Another WP:LUGSTUBS moved back into mainspace but without any qualifying WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT. I didn't find any more in my BEFORE search (a similarly named but different person in Suriname appears more often). Don't see an obvious redirect here but open to that alternative. If sufficient coverage is found please ping me and I am happy to withdraw. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always! gidonb (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY. After expansion and referencing, there is enough coverage to piece a good article together and sufficient context for a permanent biography. As others pointed out, it's still not ideal, however, the subject is long dead so BLP does not apply by any stretch of the imagination. gidonb (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not completely true. I think you’re not an expert in this field. He was not only just simply “an Olympian”. He’s a multiple world championships medalist and had a sports career of at least 12 years at the highest level. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After expansion there is don’t agree with “nothing to merge here that's relevant… …other than that he was an Olympian. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I see in Dutch newspapers he represented the Netherlands at many more international tournaments. There is also coverage about him in the major national competitions. I will add the coming days when I have time. For instance what I saw when scanning some of the many many articles content that is not yet in the article: large amount of international and national competitions, 1913 master shooter, secretary and treasurer of National Netherlands Pistol and Revolver Association, over multiple years, He was the corps gunner. Some might still argue these are not the most extensive articles yet. True, but there is many more and in my opinion writing his entire career with such content I think WP:Basic apply “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. I will see if my assumptions is true when I have time writing it. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They still need to have WP:SIGCOV, which these are not. The first of these is a single-sentence mention ("De Heer G. v. d. Bergh te Looisduinen verwierf het meesterschap mit 48 cartons", which in machine translation reads "Mr. G. v. d. Bergh of Looisduinen wins the championship with 48 cartons [presumably this is "cartridges"]". The second is just a bare mention of his name. The third discusses a mister S.J. van den Bergh - not the same person, and a G.A. van den Bergh who is also not necessarily the same person, giving no real coverage to either. Ditto the fourth link. FOARP (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My Dutch is reasonably good, but cartons stumped me a little - presumably because it is a shooting term and I know little about shooting. But I do know that in revolver shooting, cartridges is probably wrong, and this term probably pertains to the target, which would be a card. In the first sentence there is a 60 shot card (kaart) that scores 480 points, because that would be a target card with concentric rings. The second sentence refers to a revolver event that is lower scoring, and I presume "cartons" refers to a simple hit on target. My translation of the whole paragraph would be: "One becomes a master pistol shooter by achieving at least 480 points on a 60-shot target. Mr. A. Bouwens from The Hague achieved this result with 508 points. One becomes a master revolver shooter on a master target-card of 60 shots, on which 45 successful hits were achieved. Mr. G. v. d. Bergh from Loosduinen achieved the mastership with 48 successful hits. Also in the Vaderland and Loosduinen competition, there was good shooting and many standings were improved." In any case, it is not SIGCOV. It is a one sentence primary source news report of a competition score. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, S.J. van den Bergh was the father of G.A. van den Bergh. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FOARP and because we do not have sources for an article. I don't think merge is in order, as we don't have anything really to merge there. I would consider an appropriate redirect, but not entirely sure that redirecting to his father is the best target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After the article has been expanded significantly, I don’t see this as a valid reason anymore. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I expanded the article using Dutch newspaper articles. I’ve studied the first 130 article of the 1609 search results. When I have time, I can continue writing about him. At the time of moving the article to draft space it was this versus [25] this as the current version.
  • Keep Article is significantly expanded after nomination. Keep per WP:Basic “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. Note, the info in the article is from newspaper prose, so not just from listed sports results. Also note, during the early 20th century newspapers only had a low number of pages and short sports article. One or several sentences about him in such articles are not trivial mentions. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC's next sentence reads: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. It is interesting that you found sources such as the suggestion his shooting was off on the day because of a strong wind blowing, but this is a primary source. Everything else is too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspapers are reliable sources. Newspapers are not always primary sources. As writing the results is primary, giving an analysis in a later article is secondary “A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts”. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Every single one of the sources added here is just a brief mention of van den Bergh. Simply cobbling together news-reports about sporting events that do not give significant to the subject of the article is not the way to write a biographical article and does not satisfy our notability requirements. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you like correctness, you should say “In my opinion simply cobbling together…” 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the excellent expansion performed which satisfies NBASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. That an excellent article of ~600 words can be written here shows it satisfies this. We should especially realize the subject here, an offline era, 1910s-era world championship medalist shooter and national champion. It is likely that there would be further offline sources as well. Regardless, what we have should be sufficient to satisfy NBASIC, and further, I'll say that deleting this does not pose any benefit to the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "That an excellent article of ~600 words can be written here..." - Yes, truly our readers need to know what the wind was like in London in 1908... FOARP (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it was for that reason he had a poor 1908 Olympic performance, yes, it may be relevant to mention. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It, specifically, was not given as a reason why he had a poor performance in the source used to support that statement. The piece does not say that his poor performance was the result of that. What it says is:
    "Het schieten viel tegen, doordat de schuters geheel onbeschut waren tegen den dwars over de schietbaan saanden wind, welke zoo nu en dan gelijk een storm loeide. Voor de vreemdelingen vooral was dit schietterrein een groote handicap."
    Which in machine translation says:
    "The shooting was disappointing, because the shooters were completely exposed to the wind blowing across the shooting range, which occasionally howled like a storm. For the foreigners especially, this shooting range was a great handicap."
    There literally isn't anything in that article about van der Bergh specifically other than listing him as one of "the shooters"
    And that's just that one sentence. There's other parts of the "excellent" article that have van der Bergh winning "bronze" and "silver" in 1911-12 at world championship events that didn't officially start until 1947. But this is what's bound to happen where you over-interpret sources that don't really say anything about the subject you are trying to write about. FOARP (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are accusing me of over-interpreting, while it’s just stating what reliable sources are stating. ISSF World Shooting Championships mentions the years as World Championships editions; and the most recent 2023 ISSF World Shooting Championships starts with “53rd edition”. Also the ISSF website list the pre WW-II events as World Championships. Apart from that there was good coverage of the event those years, and it was named world championships in sources see for instance here. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It being recognised as one under the ISSF’s auspices is entirely retrospective, as is the idea that “gold”, “silver”, and “bronze” “medals” were awarded at it.
    There was no “ISSF world championship” held in 1911. It is also dubious that medals were awarded as such then.
    You have created an article that takes general statements about groups of competitors and mispresents them as true of the subject specifically, or relays opinions (”first class”) as if they were facts. FOARP (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im just writings what Olympedia is indicating. And note that at the early Olympics no medals were awarded. Have you for instance seen the gold silver bronze at 1903 ISSF World Shooting Championships. So stop blaming me please. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that these databases include what is essentially wrong information for statistical purposes is the entire reason why articles should not be based solely on them. FOARP (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn’t base your reasoning purely on 1 sentence you found somewhere; as sources pre World War II are naming it World Championships and the governing body indicates that it were world championships. Also all other Wikipedia articles doesn’t agree with you. So it the general consensus is against you, don’t start shouting please. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "base your reasoning purely on 1 sentence you found somewhere" - You've just written an article based entirely on single-sentence (or less) mentions. 07:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are arguing that this is good practice, so I don’t see your point. But start having the feeling we’re arguing in circles. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing even close to approaching a source containing IRS SIGCOV as required by SPORTSCRIT. BASIC is not met through trivial and primary coverage, and does not make a topic exempt from the SC5 requirement anyway. That a litany of trivial mentions in rosters and primary results and extrapolation from indirect commentary can be spun into 100s of words of prose is exactly why the state of the article is completely irrelevant to determining notability. We dismiss precisely this kind of routine, trivial coverage when assessing notability for modern athletes, why on earth would we make an exception for those from the 1920s (especially when they were nowhere near as competitive as modern Olympians)?
    1. Name in a list Red XN. 2. Name in a list Red XN. 3. Name in a list Red XN. 4. Database Red XN. 5. Name in a list Red XN. 6. Passing mention in primary event results Red XN. 7. Name in a list Red XN. 8. Name in a list (basically) Red XN. 9. Trivial mention in primary event results Red XN. 10. Name in a list Red XN. 11. Database Red XN. 12. Name in a list Red XN. 13. Name in a list Red XN. 14. Name in a list Red XN. 15. Name in a list Red XN. 16. Passing mention in primary event results Red XN. 17. Passing mention in primary event results Red XN. 18. Name in a list Red XN. 19. Name in a list Red XN. 20. Trivial mention in primary results Red XN. 21. Passing mention in primary event results Red XN. 22. Name in a list Red XN. 23. Trivial mention in list Red XN. 24. Name in list Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accoring to WP:Basic: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome of WP:NSPORTS2022 was that there had to be at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV ("There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject"). That requirement - born out of hundreds of discussions just like this one - is a hard line that can not be addressed by trying to assemble single-sentence mentions, however numerous. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are pointing to a rough community consensus. So that can be overridden by WP:BASIC or an AfD consensus. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "rough consensus" is generally used for any consensus at a major RfC, and anyway the lead statement of the close also says Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject. 1000+ AfDs, and mass-draftifications of further thousands of articles, have reaffirmed this consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I further expanded the article, most notably that he was the president of the Dutch shooting association and that he was co-founder of the Union Internationale de Tir (nowadays called International Shooting Sport Federation). 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note And lets continue: Van den Berg is credited for the establishment of a "main moment in the history of the Royal Dutch Shooting Federation" by organizing a successful shooting tournament next to the 1928 Summer Olympics in Amsterdam where shooting was not included. [26] 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More brief mentions - including in Nazi occupation-era newspapers to boot. On this basis, what other articles could be written about totally non-notable people briefly mentioned by a Nazi-era newspaper? For example I see the same page mentions a competition for a military march which was won by a certain Willem Klinkert of Nijmegen: are they now notable? And what about the 20-30 other people mentioned by name on the same page? Can we now just trawl through sources like this and say "on X date NAME did Y[link]" without any source ever actually taking the time to discuss the topic in detail?
    I'm very sorry to go in to depth about this but WP:NONAZIS is actually a pretty serious rule: but did you not look at all at the stuff that's on that page? The speech by Anton Mussert about National Socialism? Did nothing strike you as amiss at all there? Or was your entire focus just on mining anything you could find for brief mentions to string something together here?
    In no other area is it thought acceptable to try to string together a narrative through brief mentions in literal Nazi press like this. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing wikipedia Algemeen Handelsblad was an influential Amsterdam-based liberal daily newspaper published between 1828 and 1970. And according to the Dutch Wikipedia "During the first year of the occupation of the Netherlands by Nazi Germany between May 1940 and May 1945, Handelsblad initially opposed any interference by the occupiers... ...The paper excelled in veiled anti-German expressions, for example by unexpectedly interrupting mandatory war reports halfway through. As a result, the number of subscribers grew to an unprecedented level".
    I don't know the others people mentioned in the newspaper. They may or may not be notable, but that is not the discussion here (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Here we are trying to find consensus regarding to this specific person.95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So the bit where on the same page it describes repeated applause for statements like "We owe our lives to Adolf Hitler" ("ons leven habben wij te danken Adolf Hitler") - that not spark even the slightest concern on your part? Not even a bit? FOARP (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note he is credited for making national and international impact as president of the Dutch shooting association [27]. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Naar wij in De Scherpschutter lezen heeft...." ("As we read in the "De Scherpschutter"...). Literally a report from the in-house magazine of the KVvNS. Not independent. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I expaned the article regarding the 1900 Summer Olympics where he won the boys 200 meter rifle event. NOC*NSF is paying attention to this victory and there is still an ongoing discussion about giving Van den Bergh recognition as an Olympic champion. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is, yet again, another passing mention in a long list of names ("Het IOC erkent deze niet als olympisch, omdat dit wedstrijden waren voor professionals (Meijers en Cordang) of een jeugdwedstrijd (Van den Bergh)" or in machine translation "The IOC does not recognise these as Olympic, because these were competitions for professionals (Meijers and Cordang) or a youth competition (Van den Bergh).")
    What would be helpful, instead of these repeated updates, is to identify one (1) source that actually covers van den Bergh in detail, such as a multi-paragraph biographical article or obituary. FOARP (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends which article you mean, De Sportwereld has a long list with names, the other articles are about 4 people including Van den Bergh. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I'm just tired of pointing out the same thing over and over so this is the last time I will bother: the other articles only briefly mention van den Bergh (de Volksrant: "...en de schutter Gerard Anne van den Bergh, die met militair geweer over 200 meter bij de junioren de beste was", OmroepVenlo: "...en de winnaar van 200 meter militair geweer bij de junioren Gerard Anne van den Bergh."). These are passing mentions. What is need is significant coverage, such as, for example, a multi-paragraph biographical piece or obituary. Let me know if you find something like that. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just doing some research and list notable aspects of this person. But thanks for your comments.
    A multi paragraph biography is indeed welcome, but not necessarily necessary, because in that case the WP:BASIC guideline wouldn't be needed with: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, no! You are going about this the wrong way. And I don't wholly blame you. It is a common problem. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. That is by policy and design. What it is not is a history project. If you scrape together whatever you can from primary sources about the subject, and synthesise these into an article, what you are doing is that you are writing the biography. You are writing the secondary source here, because you are carrying out a history project. And if we were hosting history projects, that would be excellent work on your part. But we are not doing that. We have a policy that there must be no original research. We need someone else to have done this - whether formally in a book or thesis or less formally in documentaries, essays, articles or papers.
    Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and tertiary by design. You can't place your original research here. However there are other wiki projects that allow and encourage original research. Wikibooks for instance. If you wanted to write a wiki sports compendium book with all these biographies, that would be the project you should be looking at. But Wikipedia is not the place for this. If there are no secondary sources, there should be no article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What parts of the article are original research? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your compliment naming it an excellent work. But I don’t understand your point as all sources are reliable (newspaper) sources. And note that newspaper article summarizing history are secondary sources like [28] and [29]. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first does not mention the subject. The second has one sentence on the subject, which is not at all substantial and certainly does not fulfill the global consensus requirement for a SIGCOV source. Stringing together a bunch of primary event results and rosters is SYNTH as it implies each of those topics is proportionately encyclopedic and properly contextualized despite no sources actually discussing any combination of those events together. They are all isolated and devoid of secondary direct commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pinged an experienced Dutch-speaking editor (Fram) to have a look at the sourcing in this article since I really feel it would be good to get another point of view here. You can see their feedback here. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source does mention the subject where he is credited for “one of the greatest moment in 50 year history of the Royal Dutch Shooting Association”. I agree that listing a bunch of results from primary source is not notable. But my point is, there is a difference in a trivial mention in a primary source results list and a secondary sources that states that he created one of the greatest moments in the history of the Royal national shooting federation. And having multiple notable achievements per WP:Basic “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. And note, there are sources that combine claims. Also note that I only read less than 200 newspaper article of the around 4000 hits that Delpher are listing. It's very likely there are more sources, but it is very very difficult to find good sources because in sources he is only named by his surename. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't see there were multiple hits for "Bergh" on the same page, however I do not see anywhere in there that attributes "one of the greatest moment in 50 year history of the Royal Dutch Shooting Association” to him. The only mention is passing: The international competition was a great success, not least thanks to the efforts of Mr. GA van den Bergh, who had followed in the footsteps of his father, Mr. S. II van den Bergh, and represented the KVvNS in the Union Internation. Regardless, this 1940 Nazi mouthpiece is not a reliable source (even in this gymnastics association celebration they had to slip in praise: Even a country like Germany, which has mechanized its army to perfection).
    BASIC says nothing about "multiple achievements", explicitly discounts trivial sources, and anyway does not override the more recent and more global consensus requiring citation to a source containing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem like to copy and reapeat FOARP as much as possible, but it's discussed above and no evidence is given that the newspaper is unreliable; original research is clearly not reliable. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article states (translated): A main moment in the history of the K. V. v. N. S. was the organization of the International Shooting Competition at Ockenburgh in 1928, on the occasion of the Summer Olympic Games in Amsterdam, on the program of which shooting was not included... ...The international competition was a brilliant success, thanks to the efforts of Mr. G. A. van den Bergh, who had followed in the footsteps of his father, Mr. S. J. van den Bergh, and represented the K. V. v. N. S. in the Union Internationale.. Note that the subject was not only trivial mentions in the article. To make it easier I quoted some parts ik the references. See Gerard van den Bergh#References. Do you mean something different than WP:SIGCOV, because that states what I said, that there is coverage specifically about the subject. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would take a hefty amount of OR and SYNTH to come to the conclusion of your earlier quote from those passages. You certainly cannot claim he was responsible for organizing the competition; the source only says he represented KVvNS at Union Internationale, and that the success was "not least" thanks to his efforts (which you seem to have elided in the above quote).
    You have not added any IRS sources containing anything close to SIGCOV. The quotes are all to primary or non-independent coverage (e.g. the republication of a De Scherpschutter hagiography, as @FOARP already explained to you), or are routine, primary announcements. JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are using a lot of words while (almost) every sentence is referenced and for (almost) each claim multiple sources are provided. If sentences/claims need to be worded differently, indicate it in the article or use the talk page; that's not what the AfD is for. It's indicated above that the person meet WP:BASIC. And again, your claim The quotes are all to primary coverage is as above explaiend not true. Your claim [nothing] anything close to SIGCOV is also not true per its defenition. Signaficant Coverage is about the depth and quality of information and not about the sourcelength. According to the guideline for SIGCOV, it is more than a trivial mention and so not per definition, for instance, more than a sentence. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All sportspeople articles must cite an IRS SIGCOV source. This is a more recent global consensus than BASIC, and additionally intersects with NOT.
    Per policy, articles should be based on secondary, independent reliable sources. The vast bulk of this article is based on primary and/or non-independent sources (not to mention plainly non-significant).
    Names in lists and simple reports of events are primary. They do not provide secondary analysis directly on the topic. Sentences of primary coverage like In addition to Cordang and rowers Brandt and Klein, these include Limburg cyclist Harry Meijers (winner of the 2,000-meter sprint and tandem over 2,000 meters) and the winner of the 200-meter military rifle for juniors Gerard Anne van den Bergh.[30] and the nearly identical coverage in the two other sources cited for that claim[31][32] are also the very definition of "passing mention" (and obviously don't count as separate sources, per Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.), and fail YOUNGATH to boot. The given example of the most trivial coverage, "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" even contains more direct info on Three Blind Mice (Bill Clinton was in this band, it was a jazz band, it was a high school band) than the above (NOC*NSF is recognizing him, he won [event]), and again, that's an example intended to be as bright-line trivial as a {{tq|book-length history of IBM} is bright-line significant!
    Republished press releases like this are plainly non-independent and primary, per PAGs: For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person may contribute toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not.
    An attendee's description of a meeting, like this and this, is exactly what our policy is talking about with A primary source is a first-hand account of an event.
    Local news coverage of announcements like this and this and this are both primary and NOTNEWS For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage, and also very likely non-independent submissions.
    But sure, let's ping Dutch-speaker @Fram, who has offered to give their input on the acceptability of any specific sources you're claiming to provide SIGCOV. Please link the three best (but no more than five). JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s needed to describe extensively here about primary sources. I agree there are quite some primary sources in the article, I have never disagree that. Funny that you’re repeating almost exactly the same as FOARP and even pinging the same user afterwards; you two are a good match! 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure hope this isn't an aspersion but it reads like one. Let's keep the conversation on topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note According to the Dutch Olympic Committee he meets WP:NOLYMPICS being an Olympic champion at the 1900 Summer Olympics (link). 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget the primary sources already, they are not relevant in this type of discussion Geschichte (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, the obvious point here is that the IOC has refused to award this medal: van den Bergh is not recognised as an Olympic medallist nor do secondary sources describe him as such because of this. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information in newspapers are secondary sources when describing a recent event. However, when reflecting its secondary. Sources that addresses more than a trivial mention and addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
    note 36 (Algemeen Handelsblad in 1940)
    note 40 (Sport in 1946)
    note 41 (Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad in 1928): could be seen as secondary as its reflecting the organization in the past.
    Its furthermore likely that more sources exist regarding the fact that he made multiple lasting effects for the shooting sport ⚽️ among others for co-founding the World Federation and the 1928 tournament. (and in the near future he could be officialy an Olympic champion with more coverage guaranteed). There are so many more newspaper article and we didn’t look yet in books and magazines. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The training for the Amsterdam Shooters of the International class will start on the ranges in Zeeburg on May 3, and will be led by the former president of the Royal Association of Dutch Shooters and former international, Mr. G. A. van den Bergh. This is a trivial mention in what is clearly an announcement, failing NOTNEWS.
    A main moment in the history of the K. V. v. N. S. was the organization of the International Shooting Competition at Ockenburgh in 1928, on the occasion of the Summer Olympic Games in Amsterdam, on the program of which shooting was not included... ...The international competition was a brilliant success, not least thanks to the efforts of Mr. G. A. van den Bergh, who had followed in the footsteps of his father, Mr. S. J. van den Bergh, and represented the K. V. v. N. S. in the Union Internationale. This is a passing mention in a Nazi-era promotional piece on the KVvNS (Even a country like Germany, which has mechanized its army to perfection). Your translation also conveniently elided the part of the sentence, bolded here, that references other people being involved in the event's organization.
    The organization of these international competitions... ...spared no time or effort to get the shooting range at Ockenburgh, which are hardening in a neglected state, back in state for this important tournament. Praise for Messrs. G. A. v. d. Bergh and Captain Linden, respectively chairman and secretary of the Royal Association of Dutch Sharpshooters, who were responsible for a very large part of the organization... ...The chairman of the organizing association, Mr. G. A. v. d. Bergh, spoke at this event. The speaker recalled the fact that the international competitions had also been held on these courses, which were founded by his father at the time, in 1910. This is another passing mention, with primary/non-independent content from v. d. Bergh himself added on.
    None of these are even close to the level of detail expected for SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And come on. Anyone who is making an argument that an article that says The training for the Amsterdam Shooters of the International class will start on the ranges in Zeeburg on May 3, and will be led by the former president of the Royal Association of Dutch Shooters and former international, Mr. G. A. van den Bergh. is a secondary source really needs to carefully consider what a secondary source actually is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I made a typo in the number; not 36 but 39. See I refered to the 1940 Algemeen Handelsblad article. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And @JoelleJay:: its the SIGCOV definition; so your opinion can be different what you like to expect; but your claim None of these are even close to the level of detail expected for SIGCOV. is is your opinion and/or Original research. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which example are these passages closer to, a book-length history of IBM or the sentence In high school, [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice? And the lack of significance is in addition to the problems these sources have with primariness and reliability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Netherlands at the 1920 Summer Olympics as ATD if there's no concensus. Please refrain from hostile arguments or personal attacks, and just focus on the person's notability! Absolutely nothing even close to approaching sources containing IRS SIGCOV [...] Sounds quite harsh, huh? Instead, use a calmer and more polite like "There are no sources containing SIGCOV". ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t thinks this is a good option. The 1920 were his less successfullest Olympics. He is every few months in the media regarding to the 1900 Olympics, and he is apart from that most notable for being the sports administrator of the Dutch shooting association. There is not 1 best single redirect target. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...seriously? JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To keep this short and simple, this article meets WP:NSPORT because of his olympic participation and world championship medals and WP:GNG under coverage. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editz2341231, can you link to which specific coverage is independent, secondary, and significant? JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not absolutely required to have demonstrated significant coverage if the subject passes WP:NBASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. That a very high-quality article of over 1,300 words can be written with independent, reliable coverage, on an arguable Olympic champion and world championship medalist clearly demonstrates that this satisfies NBASIC. I'll never understand why you'll argue so long and so hard to delete actual quality articles on historic subjects of some merit. Really, what benefit would deleting this have to Wikipedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The global consensus establishing the requirement for a SIGCOV source to be cited did not provide a carveout for NBASIC. This has been affirmed in dozens (hundreds?) of AfDs where "meets NBASIC" has been used as a crutch.
    This article is refbombed exclusively with primary announcements, non-independent content, and passing mentions of exactly the type we discount for every modern sportsperson. I am sure you could write just as lengthy an article on a contemporary high school football coach based wholly on rosters, event results, quotations, and announcements in local media. The benefit to Wikipedia is to not have an article full of unencyclopedic content. JoelleJay (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator of that criterion has confirmed that NBASIC is indeed a valid path to notability for sportspeople, and this has been confirmed in a number of AFDs which have closed as keep on the basis of passing NBASIC, even if there wasn't clear agreement that there was SIGCOV. There's a big difference between a contemporary high school football coach and an Olympic champion and prominent sports administrator in the offline era, for whom it is very likely there is further coverage in addition to all that's already been found. High-quality articles like this on very accomplished, offline-era sportspeople who were arguable Olympic champions and world championship medalists are not unencyclopedic. Rather, they're exactly the type of sports figures/articles that Wikipedia should have. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay There is information about this person on the Dutch and Polish wikipedias of this person. You can also look here and then search the persons name on the Dutch newspaper to find results. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editz2341231, the Dutch article has zero sources beyond a database, and the Polish one also cites exclusively databases. These are ineligible for notability considerations. If you look at the earlier comments you can see I've already gone through the relevant Delpher results. There is not a single one that is SIGCOV, and the vast majority are primary as well. GNG cannot be met with non-significant primary sources, and on top of that we have a global requirement that all sportsperson articles must actively cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG. Without anyone adding this required source, the article violates global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's highly debatable whether we can call it "Olympic" participation since the IOC does not recognize it as such. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Olympedia list van den Bergh as competing in individual pistol (50 yards), team pistol (6th place), and free rifle (300 meters, three positions). These are generally recognized as part of the 1908 Olympic shooting program. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:05, 7 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 delete‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor)

AfDs for this article:
Brian Hansen (pornographic actor) (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)

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes SIGCOV Madeline1805 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The are all either not RS or not SIGCOV. Furthermore, the article is quite vague (e.g. "his parents were from two different continents") and certainly does not read as an encyclopaedic article. Overall, I'd say it could be saved if it wasn't for the questionable reliability of the sources, and the fact those are the best that seem to be available. JacobTheRox (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe there should be some coverage outside media only focused on the adult industry. That still leaves plenty of notable porn actors. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should be more outside coverage for notability than those focused on the industry. It does not help that this article was already nominated before and the result as delete too. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:41, 14 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. 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 [33]. 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 [34], 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 [35] is sigcov of a reading of this work by a German performer. Similar reviews here [36] 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 [37] seems to have a paragraph of analysis of this subject at the end. There is a little bit in [38]. 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.

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=1287779269"