324:: there clearly was a before. This article was prodded. The creator just removed it. It's his right but I think this should go together with serous sourcing. The article didn't provide proof of notability and still doesn't. An AfD is the next step in cases like this. It shouldn't be removed and explicitly says so. Creator removed the AfD message 3 times! This person does not come across as WP friendly. He doesn't seem to care about rules and community decisions. The article rambles on about North of the Netherlands. It's a qualified disaster. I would have improved it, I often do with people who work on their first WP project, I'm no deletionist, but could not find proof that the person is notable. So AfD was my best bet and still is.
627:, I do not think I misunderstood. Offline sources can be legitimate, however, it should be clear what they support. These genealogical documents support the idea that one Sijmon de Wael existed but it is unclear if he was important, if he was a baron, and if his descendants were baron as well. Please do not forget that Holland has among the highest internet penetration rates worldwide, books are online, as are many newspaper and magazine archives. I could not find Sijmon de Wael in these. This does not prove but may indicate that his importance is limited. In any case, it
505:, the most common Dutch paid newspaper. My concern is that we are assigning a regular family titles that most of its members did not ask for because of an outlier who aggressively (for example by time and again removing stuff that shouldn't be removed) seeks to push an agenda. Imho we should protect this family, as we aim to protect all living subjects, from unproven claims.
424:
Knowledge, please respect our core principles and assist in reaching community consensus against what may very well be a total distortion of the history of a fine Dutch family. The problem is not that you reach out to this baron-hood pusher. That is really nice of you! The problem is that your reasoning in this discussion does not hold water.
631:
strengthen the case to keep the article. As the topic of the article is vague – is it Sijmon (his name is not in bold and is not in the title), is it his alleged baron-hood, are it his descendants who are in bold? – it is even unclear what we are trying to source. With no documents found and strange
423:
to withdraw his support for this article as its sourcing is less than flimsy and built upon trust where no basis for trust was established. Your claim that we should keep an article because the topic is difficult to verify runs against everything we stand for. You're an admin at the
English-language
528:
I take your point but I think you misunderstood mine. Just because internet sources are not available do not mean the subject is not notable. I was urging above patience and to allow the creator time to source as well as he could. It's been days. If the sourcing still does not hold up, at least he
305:
be notable because he is not the kind of person who can be found on Google, but shouldn't notability be established? And how does this support a keep? The creator now uploads a lot genealogical links. They may establish that the subject of the article has existed. I do not see proof that he is
276:
To elaborate, a Baron born in 1702 may not have a lot written online. Sourcing is done through musty books on dusty shelves, probably down back corridors of universities and local historical caches. There maybe something in Google books. I don't know how they do archiving Dutch predigital age
529:
had time to try. I would like to review the sourcing, but I'm working-sleeping till some time Monday afternoon. BTW this is a first. It is the first time at AfD I've been criticized for calling for a "Keep" instead of a "Delete". Sorry if I sound incoherent, work is distracting me. Cheers,
501:, claimed to be baron and baroness in our amateur article and the linked family trees. In the obituary nothing of this sort is mentioned. A regular lady who died, the widow of her husband Evert, mother of J. (Jan), mother in law of A.C.E, more regular folks. The obituary was published in
366:- Not notable. Most of the article takes the form of a background essay or are weasel words ("an influential political figure", a claim supported only by the fact that he at some point received the title of Baron). I don't believe the Dutch Knowledge covers this person at all.
380:
The sourcing has greatly improved and I think has become significant enough to show notability since the AfD began in terms of depth. Formatting is a different matter. Unfortunately, some of it is in Dutch, and if memory serves, German. I cannot read Dutch and my German is
199:
No independent verifiable sources found in the article. My Google searches also pointed at nothing. Is this is a personal project of someone wants be a baron? Or maybe I didn't search good enough? In any case, we need sources for the
463:
coverage about him at all. Knowledge does not have a requirement that our sources be locatable online via a Google search — print-only books and newspaper archives are acceptable — but we do have a requirement that
498:
168:
238:
221:
573:, then we would have to keep every single article that anybody ever tried to create about anything at all. To get an article kept, accordingly, it's not enough to just
162:
121:
277:
records. Probably the best course in such instances is to not AfD, but to seek help from those knowledgeable of such matters. I did ask the creator for sourcing
347:
Clearly creator does not understand how to cite his sources. In a panic, he is now trying to source. I recommend patience as he is relying on paper sources.
646:
Working/sleeping tillMonday afternoon. The thing won't close till 5/9. I'll go oever erery thng when fully awake and not sneaking around at work. Thanks.
601:
it. It's not "create with bad sources and earn inclusion freebie just in case better ones might turn up someday" — finding the better sources comes
306:
notable. You elude to this yourself in your more compelling comment below. Please reconsider the opinion above in the interest of WP's quality.
128:
472:. But that's not what the sources here are, and nothing stated in the article is strong or substantiated well enough to earn him a free
94:
89:
98:
17:
285:
taking to AfD, it would have been better to establish a dialogue with the user and explain essential nature of citing sources.
301:
The fact that a person does not appear in searches is rationale to delete, not a rationale to keep. You say that this person
81:
183:
150:
632:
claims made, this case should be straightforward according to WP policies. Wishing you all the best, also at work!
713:
40:
144:
688:
651:
535:
451:
find the depth and quality of sourcing that it takes. As currently written and sourced, this is much more a
387:
353:
291:
265:
692:
669:
655:
641:
618:
540:
514:
489:
433:
414:
392:
375:
371:
358:
333:
315:
296:
270:
247:
230:
213:
140:
63:
61:
709:
243:
226:
85:
36:
684:
647:
624:
530:
420:
382:
348:
286:
260:
190:
176:
77:
69:
614:
485:
410:
367:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
708:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
665:
637:
510:
429:
329:
321:
311:
282:
209:
156:
565:
proper sourcing, and instead an article could be kept on the grounds that better sources
610:
550:
502:
481:
460:
406:
402:
115:
661:
633:
523:
506:
425:
325:
307:
205:
398:
597:
the article can be created if and when there's enough sourcing present
447:, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can
660:
I'd appreciate it if you can join the community quest for quality!
702:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
397:
The sourcing has greatly improved, has it? I'm seeing mostly
259:
Not the sort of person you will find in a google search.
111:
107:
103:
175:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
716:). No further edits should be made to this page.
239:list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions
222:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
561:exist somewhere — if articles didn't have to
189:
8:
237:Note: This debate has been included in the
220:Note: This debate has been included in the
236:
219:
499:the obituary of the wife of Evert de Waal
497:after long digging I've managed to find
455:than an encyclopedia article — there's
609:the article follows, not vice versa.
7:
480:of a demonstrated GNG pass either.
24:
681:Struck keep per above discussion
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
581:exist somewhere — you need to
1:
557:possible that better sources
401:sites for "referencing", not
204:information in the article.
549:from having to show proper
733:
705:Please do not modify it.
459:evidence being shown of
64:00:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
693:08:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
670:01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
656:19:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
642:19:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
619:19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
545:Articles don't earn an
541:06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
515:03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
490:15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
434:05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
415:15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
393:03:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
376:19:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
359:18:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
334:02:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
316:02:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
297:18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
271:18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
248:09:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
231:09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
214:05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
589:those better sources
476:of notability in the
577:that better sources
553:just because it's
625:User:Dlohcierekim
551:reliable sourcing
421:User:Dlohcierekim
250:
233:
724:
707:
538:
533:
527:
403:reliable sources
390:
385:
356:
351:
320:With respect to
294:
289:
268:
263:
246:
229:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
57:
34:
732:
731:
727:
726:
725:
723:
722:
721:
720:
714:deletion review
703:
536:
531:
521:
461:reliable source
388:
383:
354:
349:
292:
287:
266:
261:
242:
225:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
730:
728:
719:
718:
698:
697:
696:
695:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
518:
517:
492:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
361:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
252:
251:
234:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
729:
717:
715:
711:
706:
700:
699:
694:
690:
686:
682:
679:
671:
667:
663:
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
630:
626:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:theoretically
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
539:
534:
525:
520:
519:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
435:
431:
427:
422:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
391:
386:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
360:
357:
352:
346:
343:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
304:
300:
299:
298:
295:
290:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:
264:
258:
254:
253:
249:
245:
244:North America
240:
235:
232:
228:
227:North America
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:Baron de Wael
75:
74:
71:
70:Baron de Wael
68:
66:
65:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
704:
701:
685:Dlohcierekim
680:
648:Dlohcierekim
628:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:the work to
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
546:
503:De Telegraaf
494:
477:
473:
469:
465:
456:
452:
448:
444:
419:I call upon
368:Power~enwiki
363:
344:
302:
278:
256:
255:
201:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
56:Juliancolton
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
474:presumption
381:inadequate.
281:. Perhaps,
163:free images
710:talk page
547:exemption
537:cierekim
453:genealogy
399:genealogy
389:cierekim
355:cierekim
293:cierekim
279:ab initio
267:cierekim
37:talk page
712:or in a
629:does not
571:possible
468:sources
466:reliable
449:actually
122:View log
39:or in a
611:Bearcat
569:become
495:Comment
482:Bearcat
478:absence
407:Bearcat
345:comment
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
662:gidonb
634:gidonb
593:, and
524:Gidonb
507:gidonb
445:Delete
426:gidonb
364:Delete
326:gidonb
322:before
308:gidonb
283:before
206:gidonb
141:Google
99:delete
50:delete
603:first
591:first
579:might
567:might
559:might
470:exist
303:might
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
52:. –
16:<
689:talk
666:talk
652:talk
638:talk
615:talk
607:then
605:and
595:then
587:find
563:show
532:Dloh
511:talk
486:talk
430:talk
411:talk
384:Dloh
372:talk
350:Dloh
330:talk
312:talk
288:Dloh
262:Dloh
257:Keep
210:talk
202:core
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
623:Hi
575:say
191:TWL
120:– (
691:)
668:)
654:)
640:)
617:)
599:in
583:do
513:)
488:)
457:no
432:)
413:)
405:.
374:)
332:)
314:)
241:.
224:.
212:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
60:|
687:(
683:.
664:(
650:(
636:(
613:(
526::
522:@
509:(
484:(
428:(
409:(
370:(
328:(
310:(
208:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.