Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Netherlands

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Netherlands/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for Dutch wikipedians

Scan for Netherlands related AfDs

Scan for Netherlands related Prods
Scan for Netherlands related TfDs

Netherlands

LIZY (company)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Belgium, France, and Netherlands. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this article that is not included in the references right now. Also this one. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heikant, Vught

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

Did a WP:BEFORE search and couldn't come across anything relevant to the subject. Didn't find any significant coverage whatsoever in the article. Editz2341231 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ample sources. Well recognized location. Had 440 residents. Meets BASIC. Location of the Jewish cemetery of Den Bosch. gidonb (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has one source and it doesnt meet the general notability guideline. It's unlikely that it has ample sources. Since 'Heikant, Vught' is a “former hamlet,” it doesn’t qualify for the automatic presumption of notability granted to legally recognized populated places under WP:GEOLAND. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search proves that this large and official hamlet was included in every relevant geographical dictionary. Per NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's big and bold so editors will not miss it. They still do. Per NPLACE: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. The population of Heikant, Vught wasn't even particularly low. Especially not for a hamlet. This nomination has no base in our P&G. gidonb (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the population online. Can you provide some sources that are significant and independent to the subject? Editz2341231 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1851: 440 residents. Mentions the Jewish cemetery at least since 1370 1872: 130 residents 1898 1900: 395 residents 1943 etc. etc. etc. Obviously no book misses a "hamlet" (really a former village) this size. gidonb (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't confirm the reliability of these books as they aren't in English. But I'll take a look at each of the links that you've sent. Editz2341231 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editz, you chose to nominate a notable location in a country where another language is spoken. No one else. The only good answer here would have have been immediate withdrawal and apologies for wasting the community's resources with a ridiculous nomination and constant arguing. It's not your first either. All your nominations have been of notable subjects. Maybe an admin can look into this? gidonb (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP:SIGCOV in any of the refs you put here. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement. You continue to argue. gidonb (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not arguing in any way, shape, or form here. Significant coverage is required in articles. Editz2341231 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPLACE (WP:GEOLAND): Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. No SIGCOV required. For some other features it is a requirement. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those books only have a brief mention of the name, not significance, independent coverage. Possibly be WP:NEXIST since there is no significant coverage here. I mean an article, or a page of the book that describes this hamlet briefly. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you only repeat yourself, I will refer you to my previous answers. The article should be kept by WP:GEOLAND. No whataboutisms will change that. gidonb (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 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? gidonb (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nominator that the coverage from reliable sources has focused on the SP, not the RSP. "Significant coverage" means in-depth, focused coverage on the article topic in multiple reliable sources, not merely that multiple reliable sources mention it as part of the story. WP:ORG requires focused coverage. There is no inherited notability, and it seems to me that the undetailed coverage of the RSP only exists because of the SP, not because the RSP has done anything notable (yet). Yue🌙 22:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd argue coverage from the Algemeen Dagblad, Trouw and DUIC [nl] which all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. Simply put, the argument that the coverage would only exist because of the SP doesn't seem to hold up when for instance the Algemeen Dagblad article is in great part about, and features a prominent image of, the action headed by RSP.
Noverraz99 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re [The sources] all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. This does not count brief mentions, which does not count towards WP:SIGCOV. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject has proven to not be notable of any sort, maybe exclude the one source mentioned above. I am also not opposed to a merger to Socialist Party (Netherlands) as an WP:ATD. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these reliable sources clearly show SIGCOV: Op de Dag van de Arbeid dromen socialistische jongeren hardop van de revolutie, SP royeert tientallen leden vanwege 'dubbel lidmaatschap', Er komt een nieuwe Revolutionair Socialistische Partij in Rotterdam. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bresser

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. — Moriwen (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Not sure why it wasn't sent to draft space in the first place. Could easily be notable in the future. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than 90 days old and therefore ineligible, alas.— Moriwen (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since presently notable. There is a huge distance between the intro and the facts on the ground. SIGCOV sources: ESPN article by Daan Sutorius and AD article by Rik Elfrink. These are multiple sources that support notability. Other items that fall short of standalone SIGCOV yet can cumulatively contribute to such (i.e. do not analyze individually!): [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Among these are additional articles by the sports journalist Rik Elfrink. gidonb (talk) 18:04, 18 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]

20th Kisei

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The page is a record of a tournament, rather than an encyclopedia page. The contest has run since 1977, but there have been no individual pages since 2008. I've put some through PROD, but some have been dePRODed in 2008, 2010 & 2013 (22, 24 & 25). This one (20th) went to AfD in 2007. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Blackballnz (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blackballnz: per WP:BEFORE, what is your assessment of the Japanese sources on various Kisei editions? MarioGom (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I don't read Japanese but would welcome the involvement of someone who does. Of the articles listed above, around half have no sources at all. The rest are sourced to links with similar tournament information, which could not be said to be independent. Many of these articles have no leads. When 20th Kisei went to AFD in 2007, editors said they would work to bring them up to standard. That as 18 years ago, and very little has changed. The articles above relate to the years 1977 - 2007. In recent years, there have been no articles, but all the winners are listed on Kisei (Go). Blackballnz (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. So note for the closer and other participants: someone should assess the existing sources WP:BEFORE deciding here. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 23rd Kisei was prodded and deleted earlier this year. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the pages into Kisei (Go) under new sections. Redirect afterwards. SeaDragon1 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all as suggested by SeaDragon1. It would be great if we can also merge the deleted article! Can be done by undelete. Probably the hard working PROD review team missed something this once. gidonb (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, there are arguments for a Merge but with such a large bundled deletion nomination, I'd like for there to be a firmer consensus. If there is a relevant WikiProject, maybe they could be notified especially if this does become a Merge closure, we could use their help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. MarioGom (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

Comment. As a Japanese speaker, I had a look at sources. I'm having a hard time finding reliable third-party coverage for the older kisei tournaments online, but I am finding a few news articles on the more recent ones (here's one for the 49th for example: https://www.asahi.com/articles/DA3S16178212.html). Even those are relatively rare though it seems. Erynamrod (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-speaker of Japanese, I could see that the 49th Kisei was recognized as such. If we indeed go for a merge, the editions do not need to be individually notable. Only Kisei. The merged content would strengthen the article! gidonb (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Requested Mergers

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Flag of Drenthe (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of Flevoland (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of Groningen (province) (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of The Hague (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)
Flag of Weert (via WP:PROD on 19 March 2025)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Netherlands

Netherlands

LIZY (company)

Heikant, Vught

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

Michael Bresser

20th Kisei

Others

Requested Mergers

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also