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:
- 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, 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.
- Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Netherlands.
- 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.
watch |
Scan for Netherlands related AfDs
|
Contents
Netherlands
Gerardus Everardus Tros
- Gerardus Everardus Tros ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Does not meet notability criteria Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, never nominated an article before, so apologies if I'm missing anything out here. Anyway, the subject does not appear to be in any way notable. The only significant references to him are on his own website and a handful of blog postings. As per his website, his philosophical output seems to be complete woo, so I think it is extremely unlikely he has received significant coverage in any reliable sources. Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Just to be clear, our inclusion criteria for philosophers have very little to do with whether their philosophy is "serious" or "woo" — metaphysical writers can still receive reliable source coverage that analyzes their importance (e.g. Helena Blavatsky), and non-metaphysical philosophers can still fail to receive that. What's determinative here is not so much his subject area, as his complete lack of any sources he didn't write and publish himself. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete It seems that no notice has been taken of this person's work. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC).
- Delete. Independent scholars can be notable but we have no evidence that this one is. There are a few blog posts about him out there but nothing that would count as an independent reliable source by Wikipedia standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of him passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2019–20 Eredivisie
- 2019–20 Eredivisie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Besides the names of the 2 teams (PSV and Ajax) and their stadiums/capacity, everything on this page is incorrect or speculation.
- Season doesn't start at 9 August, the Eerste divisie will.
- (Regular) season will not end 24 May with play-offs taking place after
- The assignment of spots in European leagues will most likely differ.
- The reference to the season rules is invalid. A new document will be published with the rules for 2019/20.
- Coaches and captains of teams are far from certain. In case of Ajax the odds them changing is substantial.
Wiki is not a speculation encyclopedia, nor an announcement board of what might be. Sb008 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The erroneous information can be removed, having erroneous information is not a reason to delete. This article can exist as a stub with the qualified teams and certain information like their stadiums: there are already two qualified teams so there's at least some certain information. By June, all of the qualified teams will be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.239.57 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - It's too soon to create this article. – PeeJay 14:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Draft or Keep Pointless deleting something that's needed to recreate it in a months time. Govvy (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Those teams have qualified for next year's season, so it's ok to have it created. Kante4 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep It's a general thumbrule that next-season (next-iteration pattern) articles can be created when the year they start in is the current year, or when the previous iteration is over. @PeeJay2K3: Please cite the policy which states that it's too soon to create this article.
- Created after last Indian general elections
- Created this year as the end of the EPL season approaches
- Per WP:FUTURE, this article satisifies the conditions that this will definitely happen. The article can be modified to remove the speculation bits. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @QEDK and PeeJay2K3: If you expect PeeJay2K3 to cite a policy, it's only fair you do the same for your thumbrule. Furthermore, I don't understand the 2 examples you provide, the 2019 Indian general election page was created 5 years (2014) before the actual election. In 2014 no one could guarantee the government elected would not collapse. So the page was pure speculation at creation time. And I most certainly hope you don'y wish to compare the 2019–20 Premier League and the 2019–20 Eredivisie (DED) page. On the EPL page I don't see speculations about managers/coaches, team captains, kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors. I don't see invalid start and end dates. I don't see invalid references to season rules. I don't see a ranking table with incorrect European League qualification options and 18 TBA listings. If you can guarantee the stadium names mentioned will not change, the EPL page contains only accurate info where the DED page besides 2 team names only contains invalid info or speculation. The DED page has been used as an exercise page and is a disgrace as is. --Sb008 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Let me quote part of the second pillar: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." At the time the article was created, the only verifiable accurate information available were start and end date of the season (both listed incorrect) and not 2 but 5 teams which will participate next season. If you study the current ranking and matches to go, in depth, the list of 5 teams can be expanded even more. From those teams, in general, the only thing which can be listed is the town they from. For the 2 teams listed right now, we can assume the stadium names still to be correct next season. However nothing is for sure. There was a time you were called insane if you said PSV will have a different shirt sponsor than Philips. So who knows, maybe next season the PSV stadium is called Sony Stadium. All in all, in general the stadium name, kit manufacturer and shirt sponsor are in some cases likely but in none factual. The shirt sponsor now listed for PSV in the next season is incorrect. To list coaches and team captains is even more absurd. The transfer circus still has to start, so almost all is open. Like mentioned before, the spots available in European leagues are not yet clear. But the way it's listed now for sure will not apply. This alone makes it bizarre to create a standings table already. The majority of the teams not yet known makes it even more bizarre. However, what can be said for sure is that PSV will not be among the first 9 at the start of the season. To list them right now as 2nd is incorrect for sure. Ajax could in theory start as 1st, but it's not what I expect. If the page should be kept, right now all that can remain are a corrected start and end date and a list of teams (name and town only) which for sure will participate in next season. All the rest is assumption and speculation and doesn't belong on the page (yet). --Sb008 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply here. GiantSnowman 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
DeleteDraftify per WP:TOOSOON, there isn't sufficient information yet for an article although it will need to be created at some point. SSSB (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)- Keep If this does get delete, it's properly going to be recreated anyway in a couple of months with this type of seasonal article. Matt294069 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- keep If delete, it will be recreated in a few weeks Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hhkohh:, @Matt294069:, that's not a keep argument, it's a drafting argument, moving it to draft allows an article that was created prematurely to be republished at an appropriate time. This article was created prematurely and should be temporary moved to draftspace where it can be added to and improved until an appropriate time to move it back to the mainspace. SSSB (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- SSSB, I am fine with drafting. Either is okay to me Hhkohh (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Drafting would just mean that another user could create a stab in the article space, and then we have both a stub and a draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, unlikly, when you attempt to recreate a deleted article a notice comes up informing the editor that the article was deleted, and when you create an article that exists in the draft space the same thing happens. Besides another user creating, also prematurly, is not an argument to keep the article. SSSB (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Being a new page patroller, I have seen this actually happening so many times that I can not really believe this is unlikely. Now, if you need the argument, deletion and draftifying are the last means of dealing with the article which can not be otherwiose salvaged. This article can be reduced to an entirely uncontroversial stub in a couple of minutes, it is just the nominator was not willing to do so and nominated it for AfD out of principle (they and I had a discussion prior to the nomination).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: reducing it to a stub doesn't make it uncontreversial, it has been nominated per WP:TOOSOON making it a stub doesn't change anything. SSSB (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is not in any way uncontroversial. The 2019–20 Eredivisie is going to happen with absolute certainty, and we have plenty of reliable sources about it. We also know quite a few facts with absolute certainty, for example, how many clubs are going to participate and what are the positions of these clubs in the current season going to be. Or who is going to organize the competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: but we don't need an article about it yet because there isn't enough specific information to warrant an article per WP:TOOSOON. There is no need for this article to exist yet. SSSB (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Our policies do not operate with such notions like "we need an article" or "we do not need an article". You think we do not need it, I think we need it, who cares. The policies establish notability (which in this case nobody really disputes) and whether the article otherwise conforms to the policies (it does not since it contains clearly false statements). Then the question is what do we do with the article: clean up, draftify, or delete. The policies are pretty clear that cleaning up is preferable. Additionally, it is unclear who is going to work on this article if it goes to draft and who will remember to move it to the article space once more info is available. My guess is that nobody is going to do it, but just someone recreates something directly in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Look if you really want to complain about the fact this article is indeed WP:TOOSOON then why haven't you gone and AFD 2019–20 La Liga and 2019–20 Bundesliga as they haven't happened yet. Both of those events will happen in the near future and yet you haven't targeted those. Maybe it is because there is no references in the article and that is why you have put it up for deletion. Matt294069 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Our policies do not operate with such notions like "we need an article" or "we do not need an article". You think we do not need it, I think we need it, who cares. The policies establish notability (which in this case nobody really disputes) and whether the article otherwise conforms to the policies (it does not since it contains clearly false statements). Then the question is what do we do with the article: clean up, draftify, or delete. The policies are pretty clear that cleaning up is preferable. Additionally, it is unclear who is going to work on this article if it goes to draft and who will remember to move it to the article space once more info is available. My guess is that nobody is going to do it, but just someone recreates something directly in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: but we don't need an article about it yet because there isn't enough specific information to warrant an article per WP:TOOSOON. There is no need for this article to exist yet. SSSB (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is not in any way uncontroversial. The 2019–20 Eredivisie is going to happen with absolute certainty, and we have plenty of reliable sources about it. We also know quite a few facts with absolute certainty, for example, how many clubs are going to participate and what are the positions of these clubs in the current season going to be. Or who is going to organize the competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: reducing it to a stub doesn't make it uncontreversial, it has been nominated per WP:TOOSOON making it a stub doesn't change anything. SSSB (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Being a new page patroller, I have seen this actually happening so many times that I can not really believe this is unlikely. Now, if you need the argument, deletion and draftifying are the last means of dealing with the article which can not be otherwiose salvaged. This article can be reduced to an entirely uncontroversial stub in a couple of minutes, it is just the nominator was not willing to do so and nominated it for AfD out of principle (they and I had a discussion prior to the nomination).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, unlikly, when you attempt to recreate a deleted article a notice comes up informing the editor that the article was deleted, and when you create an article that exists in the draft space the same thing happens. Besides another user creating, also prematurly, is not an argument to keep the article. SSSB (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Drafting would just mean that another user could create a stab in the article space, and then we have both a stub and a draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- SSSB, I am fine with drafting. Either is okay to me Hhkohh (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hhkohh:, @Matt294069:, that's not a keep argument, it's a drafting argument, moving it to draft allows an article that was created prematurely to be republished at an appropriate time. This article was created prematurely and should be temporary moved to draftspace where it can be added to and improved until an appropriate time to move it back to the mainspace. SSSB (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Marius Cornelis van Houten
- Marius Cornelis van Houten ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Neither being an army officer nor a museum director qualifies this person under any subject specific guideline. The only reference provided is to a museum brochure. A Google News search turns up nothing, and a Google Books search turns up one mention in passing that he was involved with the idea of creating Interpol. This article may be a WP:MEMORIAL. A loose necktie (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Robine van der Meer
- Robine van der Meer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Not even the Dutch article has sources that could save this. No notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Clearly not enough sourcing (much less quality sourcing) to establish notability. Waggie (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Daniella van Graas
- Daniella van Graas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
The actress/model lacks significant coverage. I thought I could fix it but any article she is mentioned in is mere mention and it's about other actresses. Exhibit A. Maybe redirect to All My Children. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect somewhere. I looked too, found nothing that would show notability. Maybe just too soon. --valereee (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Jay Haviser
- Jay Haviser ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Not confident this guy meets any of the points in WP:NPROF. As I've admitted elsewhere, I'm not the best judge of NPROF, so I ran it by DGG. He advised it was a borderline case so I figured I'd run it by AfD. I'm by no means strenuously arguing for deletion, so I'm happy to withdraw if people are pretty sure he meets the criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Agree with nom: borderline. GS h-index of 11 a bit low. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC).
- Comment One of his books is held in over 1600 libraries, potentially meeting WP:PROF#C1 (I don't know much about how this relates to library holdings, though). IntoThinAir (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete--I need to see at-least 3 major publications, which have been extensively reviewed. The positions that he held does not confer notability either. ∯WBGconverse 19:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Commenting to point out that he is the author of two independently notable books: African Sites: Archaeology in the Caribbean and African Re-Genesis: Confronting Social Issues in the Diaspora. (They were not linked in the article at the time of nomination.) MarkZusab (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos and MarkZusab: - in a sense, that's an interesting variation of WP:HEY - demonstrate notability by improving/creating articles other than the one undergoing AfD WP:HEYOTHER? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep based on the multiple reviews of his books linked above (WP:PROF#C1/WP:AUTHOR), although I'd merge them into Haviser's article. – Joe (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of his books. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Joe (either criterion). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Others
Categories
Deletion reviews
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
Redirects
Templates
See also
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Netherlands related pages including deletion discussions