Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robine van der Meer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robine van der Meer

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Robine van der Meer (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)

Not even the Dutch article has sources that could save this. No notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently this isn’t true. Trillfendi (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have evidence that she is not notable??? Bring it on! gidonb (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance does not = notability. 2 of the “sources” are dead and the other one is IMDb which you very well know is not a reliable source. What does that tell you about this “article”? Trillfendi (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi, what you say tells absolutely nothing about the subject or its sources. It does tell that your nomination hangs on broken links in references (and otherwise weak references) while the topic of the nomination passes the professional standard. Please check WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a question. When you say "Appearance does not = notability", do you mean to say that you disagree with our notability guideline or just that two major roles are needed by WP:ENT #1? She does have these. gidonb (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is obviously not about stupid shit like broken links, like I already said notability is not there and it hasn’t been proven. Not even significant coverage. What do you get when you search her name—at most relationship gossip from 3 years ago from websites like “whosdatedwho.com”. This “article” is a random smattering of sentences. None of the vague[vague] work she has done shows notability and appearing on an unknown tv show 11 years ago with no verification to back up doesn’t hold up an article. It’s very clear that “Model in 1 day” is not on calibre with an actual modeling show like Holland's Next Top Model. Trillfendi (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has been estaiblished as Van der Meer passes the relevant professional standard, WP:ENT. The fact that there are longer running and more recent shows (we have huge WP:RECENTISM problems in showbiz and elsewhere) than Model in 1 dag, does not take anything away from this show's importance. It says something positive about Holland's Next Top Model that is irrelevant to Van der Meer's notability. There is no such thing as negative proof of the WP:GNG by pointing at random gossip, unless that source is already part of the positive proof. Here the relevant standard is clear. The points you raise (broken links, an irrelevant reference, some gossip, and another show) are distractions. gidonb (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the imdb reference (moved it to external links) and will review the other references. All this is simple editing work. Please, when you see a notable article with bad referencing, improve it or just slap the correct warning. gidonb (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing to improve! No reliable sources exist at all and you’d be hard pressed wasting time trying to “find” them. That’s what brought it to this point. Being on a tv show does not under any case equal automatic notability. Trillfendi (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another distraction. Per WP:ENT, two significant roles make notability. Van der Meer had these roles. In response to insufficient or the lack of WP:BEFORE, you can point out that each one of these roles proves only half notability (i.e. no notability without the other role) but it only shows that this nomination was a mistake. Please withdraw and be more careful next time! gidonb (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is... these roles aren't significant. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Trillfendi (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep" and there are 50 states in the US. All true but totally irrelevant. I do not understand why you feel this urge to comment under people's opinion if you do not use relevant arguments or information. And that's even before we address the intro: "Not even the Dutch article has sources that could save this. No notability." I do not watch tv but started looking into notability after I saw a confused nomination. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've maintained my view from the jump and clearly another editor showed agreement with their vote to delete and rationale. So yes that makes you the confused one here. There is absolutely nothing that can be salvaged in this article, let alone with adequate sourcing. And no, I never withdraw deletion nominations and I never will. Now you're trying to strong-arm me into going your way because you don't like it? That's not how any of this works. Trillfendi (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my point was that this is a badly researched nomination as you never mentioned the relevant standard. A lot of handwaving but the professional standard is met. As is the WP:GNG. The rest was just how I got here. gidonb (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the "professional standard" is "a sentence about someone exists in a random, unreliable website" then that's the very problem. That's the kinda of stuff that makes people refute Wikipedia's credibility. Trillfendi (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So not to confuse you, I had actually linked "the professional standard". To no avail. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 26 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robine_van_der_Meer&oldid=894626020"