Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie den Dekker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Courcelles 06:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathalie den Dekker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ANYBIO. No other Miss Nederland has an article either. WP:NN until she wins Miss Universe WP:TOOSOON! MJH (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - winner of national title. For major beauty pageant. Sue Rangell above her has !voted Delete not notable, on a number of articles in speed.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, as with other Miss Universe contestant articles without notability elsewhere. Comment to BabbaQ: whether Sue Rangell voted in speed is not relevant. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't think this is a true ONEEVENT situation. Qualifying for the Miss Universe pageant involves winning a series of regional (and then national) preliminary pageants. I would look to WP:NSPORT for comparison... Winning the Miss Netherlands contest can be equated to winning a national/divisional title in an international sports league, a title that qualifying the winner to move on to the international championship. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Both Habagat and user sue rangell has one thing in common they !voted on all these Miss Universe 2012 contestants AfDs within a few minutes time. And with the same reasonings on them all.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I responded to this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Christela --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actually, while the other AFD nominations in this batch are all better off as redirects, this one may warrant a keep. The subject has been in several international contests since 2010, and I see Google News archive coverage (in various languages!) of those contests, so as BlueBoar points out, not strictly One Event. Not really an appropriate single redirect for this person. Mabalu (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have an established practice where winners of major national competitions are sufficiently notable for an individual article. Repeated common practice is a guideline. As far as my personal interests are concerned, and in consideration of the small amount of information, we might usefully combine some of these., but that should be a general discussion, not here, where it is obviously receiving little attention. (It might depend on the relative importance of the different competitions, a question about which I have no knowledge), So, keep for now. (since this individual has more information than some of the others, it might be justified even if the others are combined. but we should decide that first. Accepting Mabalu's evaluation, this group of nominations would seem indiscriminate; these articles are just as worthless to me as they are to the nominator, but that's no reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 14 December 2012 (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.