Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addy van den Krommenacker


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Addy van den Krommenacker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As mentioned with my PROD here, my searches found several links (at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam) but they're all passing mentions or otherwise unacceptable for better notability here. SwisterTwister  talk  08:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, obvious WP:BEFORE failure by the nominator (an AfD and PROD enthusiast), and not the first time by him. Looking at his history, he nominated the article exactly THREE MINUTES after I deprodded the article with the rationale that there were "tons of significant coverage (which were) easily available". About the subject, a little extempt found in a minute (some of them are archives containing multiple articles), , , , , , , , . If requested, I can provide more (there are about one thousand recent news about him in Google News, and a lot more searching in archives). There are also several interisting book sources available, including the book Dutch Translation in Practice by Jane Fenoulhet and Alison Martin which describes him as "an internationally acclaimed figure in the world of haute couture". The article itself already contained a significant reliable source (an extensive, 8-pages-long entry in the Atlas of Fashion Designers). I fail to see how he could fail notability. Cavarrone  09:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per User:Cavarrone - it's another John Fluevog situation where people who actually do searches end up casting serious doubt on the nom's claim that proper WP:BEFORE searching was carried out. Mabalu (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Typical of SwisterTwister's lazy rapid-fire AFD noms where their "argument" is basically to just dump a link to Google search results so it looks like they actually did a search for sources beforehand (which this particular nomination kinda disproves, as if they had actually done a proper look at the results they would've seen that this was NOT getting deleted). Sometimes their noms are valid, but then things like this come up and make the nominator look really bad. Sorry, I've raised this concern in other AFDs much more politely, but given that SwisterTwister rarely seems to come back to AFDs after nomming, I may as well say exactly what I think  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayScientist (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RailwayScientist I appreciate the flattery and the implication that you agree with what I said, but I would appreciate it if you didn't copy and paste my statements as if they were your own, particularly the bits that are more personal to me such as "Sorry, I've raised this...." onwards - at least attribute my words to me, please. Thank you. Mabalu (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What are "rapid-fire" are articles that needed attention long ago and as Cavarrone also seems to be baselessly criticizing this, I actually searches, yes, but none of it seemed better for a notable article. BTW, if you're simply going to criticize all of my AfDs as I "dump" all these links including criticizing my need for "punctuation", perhaps you shouldn't comment at all. If I never come back to answer, it is because I don't have an answer or it is not obviously going to help at all.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While you do nominate plenty of articles that should be deleted, (and I have agreed with you on a number of AFDs), unfortunately you do have a habit of SEEMINGLY doing a basic search on Google and without even bothering to look at the results, just copy the URL to the generic search results and dump it in your nomination as "evidence" that the article should be deleted. Linking to a page of search results doesn't exactly mean that we see the same search results as you do. The reason I get frustrated is that if you had genuinely bothered to look at the search results for some of your nominations, you would have seen at a glance that they wouldn't be getting deleted - so why waste everyone's time going ahead with the nom anyway? I apologise for the tone of the comment above, but when there was no response to that, I decided to just let it lie - until User:Cavarrone said they'd noticed it too; and then RailwayScientist for some reason decided to copy and paste what I said from the Fluevog AFD into this debate. I acknowledge that I was needlessly harsh, and apologise for the tone, but when you say "this is the best I could find" and link to a page of Google search results, how are we supposed to know which of the results you are talking about? How do we even know that the results on the page we are seeing are the same results you yourself saw? I tried over and over again in previous AFDs to explain this and ask you to be more specific about the sources you refer to. Unfortunately, it took RailwayScientist copy-pasting over my harsh words from the Fluevog AFD to get a response. When basic searches immediately pull up many sources, then someone clearly didn't do a very good job with their checks beforehand. The only reason for nominations such as this, when so many sources are readily available to show notability, appears to be to force other editors to improve and rescue the articles - but AfD is not cleanup. Mabalu (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (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.