Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aad Oudt


 * 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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Aad Oudt

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG through lack of WP:SIGCOV, with none being provided in our article, in the Dutch article, or being available in a WP:BEFORE search. Did not medal, and so fails WP:NOLYMPICS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This one in-depth. Maybe others look around for more. Unclear why this had been prodded. Prodding is for more trivial cases. Tradition is that we hold athletes (also in the broad sense) notable under WP:NATH, if no specific guideline for a subject exists, and they participated in the Olympics. Oudt participated twice. gidonb (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If Google Translate is correct, the closest that comes to significant coverage of Aud Oudt is a single paragraph, stating The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life., which would seem to me to be a trivial mention. You might disagree, but even if you classify that as significant coverage we need multiple sources and we don't have those.
 * As for the prod, I would think that articles with no significant sources or indication that they exist would be a trivial case. Finally, WP:NATH is limited to "Athletics/track & field and long-distance running", and the fact that the community decided to limit the scope of WP:NOLYMPICS tells us that there is a consensus against your position of presumed notability. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reaction is misleading. The text continues to discuss Aad Oudt and to provide information on the sports activist. The article is an in-depth text and Oudt clearly did more than particpation in two (!) Olympics. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Google Translate, the rest of the text discusses the Top Sport Committee, and while there are occasional mentions of Oudt, they are clearly not significant. If I am wrong, could you please provide quotes? BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will. It's about the changing committee and Oudt's continuing role in it. This is another in-depth source, discussing Oudt's opinions on top sport in the Netherlands and contrasting these with the opinions of Mieke Sterk. 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And this is the third source. While focused more on the sports achievements of Oudt (the other two are on sports leadership), it also provides biographic information. gidonb (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And this is again in-depth, even in further depth, also totally refuting JPL below. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSUE, can you please provide an English translation of of the relevant section when posting these? Going through them, as far as I can tell none of them constitute significant coverage. The first consists of a single paragraph discussing Oudt which ledes into a broader discussion about sport structures, the second consists of a short transcript of a swimming race, primarily covering Oudt's opponent. The third appears to be Oudt being interviewed about the Top Sport Committee; it has minimal coverage of Oudt, and even for an article about the committee I would question whether we can use it to establish notability, as it doesn't include secondary analysis and thus might not meet the independent requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BM, by now you have taken this AfD and PRODing (while the deletion is very far from trivial) to four pages. Please try to convince in your intro that you have a case and, if that did not work out, add a couple of responses here but there is no need to spread this so wide. gidonb (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, which four pages? As best I can tell, I have discussed this on the talk page of the article under discussion prior to the AFD, and I am now discussing it here. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete To start with whatever we have "traditionally" done, the guidelines changed in October when we decided that non-medaling Olympians are not default notable. Thus this article needs to pass GNG, and the existing and identified sources are not enough to show notability. Participating in the Olympics is not a sign of notability, and one article no matter how in-depth is not enough to pass GNG. I agree with BilleMammal that the article is not actually in-depth coverage of Oudt, but even if it is, it is not enough on its own to show GNG passing. Participating in the Olympics is not a sign of notability, only medaling in the Olympics is. Unless of course we find multiple, in-depth, indepdent from each other sources that discuss in-depth the person's role in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NATH does not apply, that covers people inbvoled in "athletics", which is essentially the British term for what Americans call "track and field". There are some differences in exactly what the terms cover, but neither are broad enough to include swimmers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It is telling that we know this person in 1968 was seeking to become a tax lawyer, but 54 years later we have no clue if he became a tax lawyer or not. That is a classic case of someone not being a public figure. Again, GNG requires multiple sources and that is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion is based on an incomplete reading of sources. Meantime the article was edited by nom to contain your incorrect WP:SYNTH. I'll fix that and the typo he insisted on once the article is kept.gidonb (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're slightly misrepresenting the source (relevant section quoted above), and why I reverted your edit that was misleadingly summarized as spelling, but this is the wrong location for that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, per gidonb. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG requires multiple sources that meet its parameters, but only one source has been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Four have been identified thus far. More may follow but four is what we have right now. Two are sufficient. JPL's other points were also refuted above. gidonb (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've actually counted zero constituting significant coverage based on my review above. Could you provide the quotes that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In-depth source #5. gidonb (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said previously, Per WP:RSUE, can you please provide an English translation of of the relevant section when posting these?. Further, quotes of the specific sections that you believe constitute significant coverage would be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep – This is getting quite boring now. A single user obsessed with deleting bios of noted individuals, flanked by his sidekick. Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users. There's a point where WP:Goodfaith goes out the window for me, and it's when patterns of non-constructive behaviour amount. User:Gidonb has clearly identified a significant amount of newspaper coverage for this individual. My own searches returned a further two here and here. Arguing that they can't see the significance of the individual because the sources are in Dutch is not an argument. User:BilledMammal has previously been pulled up on their failure to institute WP:BEFORE. It's so important that we conduct thorough searches before nominating articles for deletion. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My argument is that I can't see the significance because the first four sources don't contain significant coverage, as documented in detail above. I haven't reviewed the fifth nor the two you have provided, because I see no reason to expect that they are any different. If you disagree and believe that they are significant, then I ask that you provide an English language translation of the contents containing significant coverage - both per WP:RSSE, and the general notion that if you believe a source contains significant coverage, it shouldn't be hard to provide quotations containing said coverage.
 * Finally, noting the personal attacks, please see your talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a personal attack. Merely a passive comment about your general conduct on here, and I'm entitled to hold, and to air that opinion. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are repeating the conversation here, rather than containing it on the talk page, but as you are: Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users this line in particular is indisputably a personal attack, and I would ask that you strike it and the other, similar lines. If you believe there is an issue with my general conduct, then the correct place to discuss that is on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You brought it here also, that's why I'm also responding to that point on here. Wiktionary itself defines a personal attack as something relating to "the individuals's personal circumstances, trustworthiness, or character into question". I touched on none of those, merely your conduct and patterns of behaviour. I don't wish to discuss this any further. If you feel I have done wrong to you then lodge a complaint against me if you wish. Thanks again. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Claiming someone has "nothing constructive to offer" and ascribing an intent to "destroy" others' work is pretty clearly a personal attack. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I have a tendency as of late to vote Delete in any AfD involving a sportsperson where there hasn't been a representation of meeting GNG (because it is turning out more and more that many of them DON'T meet the GNG and the NSPORTS rules are just propping up empty nothings of articles). But, in this case, it does appear other editors have presented a significant amount of coverage from the time period regarding this athlete. So it does appear they meet the GNG. I will even helpfully organize the presented references.
 * And here's an additional one that I found myself.
 * There appears to be plenty more besides in regards to coverage spanning a couple years in the late 60's, early 70's there. Silver  seren C 02:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed most of those, and found them lacking. For instance, the closest your second example comes to significant coverage is this sentence: The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life - and I don't believe that meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. If you disagree, could you provide a couple of quotes (perhaps WP:THREE) that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the source you found, I don't believe it constitutes significant coverage of Oudt, with most mentions of them appearing to be something similar to "Aad Oudt says in his report", "Aad Oudt notes in his report", with the rest being in regards to quotations from him regarding the broader topic - the article seems to be WP:SIGCOV of the report, not of one of its authors. If I have missed a paragraph, could you point me towards its location or otherwise quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And here's an additional one that I found myself.
 * There appears to be plenty more besides in regards to coverage spanning a couple years in the late 60's, early 70's there. Silver  seren C 02:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed most of those, and found them lacking. For instance, the closest your second example comes to significant coverage is this sentence: The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life - and I don't believe that meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. If you disagree, could you provide a couple of quotes (perhaps WP:THREE) that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the source you found, I don't believe it constitutes significant coverage of Oudt, with most mentions of them appearing to be something similar to "Aad Oudt says in his report", "Aad Oudt notes in his report", with the rest being in regards to quotations from him regarding the broader topic - the article seems to be WP:SIGCOV of the report, not of one of its authors. If I have missed a paragraph, could you point me towards its location or otherwise quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed most of those, and found them lacking. For instance, the closest your second example comes to significant coverage is this sentence: The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life - and I don't believe that meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. If you disagree, could you provide a couple of quotes (perhaps WP:THREE) that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the source you found, I don't believe it constitutes significant coverage of Oudt, with most mentions of them appearing to be something similar to "Aad Oudt says in his report", "Aad Oudt notes in his report", with the rest being in regards to quotations from him regarding the broader topic - the article seems to be WP:SIGCOV of the report, not of one of its authors. If I have missed a paragraph, could you point me towards its location or otherwise quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, per Dutch newspaper results. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.