Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Netherlands

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Emran Barakzai

Emran Barakzai (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)

Player without any notable spells who only played for Jong Ajax and amateur teams in the Netherlands. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He played 6 minutes plus extra time of professional league football with Ajax U-23, where he was a bencher. Since, he has been playing amateur soccer, and not always on first squads. That is very healthy and much more than I ever did in soccer! Still, the coverage is either not independent or not SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow Night

Sparrow Night (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)

News Tower appears to be notable, but this studio is not notable. A merge to the game seems apt, though it would become a problem if the studio released more than one game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom, textbook case for WP:NOTINHERITED. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to News Tower, not independently notable. ~ A412 talk! 23:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to News Tower. There really needs to be an essay on how WP:NOTINHERITED applies to creators of works where sourcing on the works is the only evidence provided to support the notability of the creator. That generally fails WP:GNG every time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some subtlety though and I think it differs by field of work. For video games, films, and television, we tend to have articles on the works first, and tend to construe information on the creators as information on them creating that work. For music and visual art, we tend to have articles on the creators first. Literature is a mix. ~ A412 talk! 21:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIZY (company)

LIZY (company) (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are either based on company announcements (fail WP:ORGIND) or funding and launch announcements (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025) (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)

Similar translations have been rejected in Draft space twice, see Draft:Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands - 2025). As I have pointed out, coverage is mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands). There is this article, but in total I don't think the topic meets the notability threshold and it is better to wait for more coverage and/or electoral success. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I respectfully disagree. As the Wikipedia guidelines state that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I'd argue that sources with independent coverage such as Trouw, DUIC [nl], Dagblad010 in combination with sources such as RTL Nieuws that have coverage mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands), add up to a topic that can be deemed as having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, as the page already has a Dutch and Chinese translation, it would seem strange to deny an English translation, which seems like there is a double standard.

In short, I think there is enough coverage to meet the notability threshold. Electoral success as a prerequisite for the page doesn't seem logical to me, considering other existing pages of Dutch political parties that have not yet had any electoral successes. The Trouw article also explicitly covers antiparliamentary sentiments within the party, which implies the party itself does not prioritize electoral successes at least in the same way that the deletion request suggests.

I'd be happy to hear if you could detail which of the requirements from the general notability guideline exactly is missing and therefore how the article fails to meet the threshold. PS. Sorry If I messed some formatting up. I'm new to the AfD process.

Noverraz99 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Noverraz99 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article doesn't look like it's in the best shape, but I am going over my head. Can someone from the Netherlands comment on the reliability of RSP and ROOD?
    • Comment Indeed the article link seems to be broken. Luckily, it is archived here. As a person from the Netherlands I'd consider there to be enough reliable coverage of RSP and ROOD to warrant their articles, though if people disagree I would be open to hear their reasoning. Noverraz99 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The only source that you provided above is mentioned in the nomination statement. It might also be the only valid sources available to establish notability. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can totally grasp someone's frustration that there are so many political parties in the Netherlands. Yet we follow the P&G. This meets the GNG and NORG. It's a proper SPINOFF of its parent. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Proper spinoff? Whether or not WP:SPINOFF is guaranteed, it does not mean that the topic is immediately notable (notability is not inherited). And please provide sources that prove that the subject is notable enough. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is automatically notable. Why place such a reaction? Also, several others listed fine sources. No need to rehash that. As a justified SPINOFF, there is no case to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources brought up by Goldsztajn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the first two sources provided by Goldsztajn have significant coverage; in my opinion they suffer from the same problem of being focused on the SP and only being reported because of the SP. A splinter group doesn't inherit notability just because the more notable organisation it split from received coverage because of the split. The third source has focused coverage, but it's from a minor, local news site, and speaks mostly to the RSP's potential in the future. I'm not sure what makes the RSP notable at present aside from arguments that amount to inherited notability. Might be a WP:TOOSOON problem as well. Yue🌙 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bresser

Michael Bresser (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 WP:BIO. Unable to find significant independent coverage, although his club (PSV) has some press releases; other than that, it's just database entries. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a clear analysis of the sources added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AD source is great. I did look behind the paywall. gidonb (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. ESPN.nl is hardly an independent source, given their extensive contract and mixed finances with Eredivisie Media & Marketing and direct collaboration with the Eredivisie clubs. Eredivisie Media & Marketing CV was established by the Eredivisie clubs in 2008 to exploit their collective media and sponsorship rights. The company's first major achievement was the launch of the television channel Eredivisie Live, the first owned television channel by clubs in Europe. In 2012, FOX International Channels acquired a majority stake in EMM, and Eredivisie Live was renamed FOX Sports a year later. In 2019, The Walt Disney Company acquired the majority share. Since January 1, 2021, the television channel has been known as ESPN. With just the AD source I think it's reasonable to draftify until further coverage becomes available. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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=1292668446"