Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique Houtkamp


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Angelique Houtkamp

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

This subject fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. This impression emerged after I removed all references that didn't meet WP:RS and/or violated WP:BLP/WP:BLPSPS. What remains is: 1) an interview (still BLPSPS content but an unrelated publisher); 2) a work whose depth in coverage of the subject I'm unable to verify; 3) scant mention; and 4) slightly less-scant mention, but in a dissertation/thesis paper, not what a BLP usually hangs its hat on. There are not multiple independent sources giving significant coverage of her on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Visual arts,  and Netherlands. North America1000 04:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Qwrk (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And thank you for referring this article to WP:BLPN in the first place. I created this AfD discussion in agreement with your comment there, and as a courtesy. If you'd like to contribute to a decision on whether to Keep or Delete this article, I hope you'll consider leaving an additional comment with your recommendation in bold text. I find your position clear. But this is the forum where stating it matters. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article in the Guardian is primary, the magazine from down under is not independent. Our text is also primary. gidonb (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. The way this article was set up - before your great edits - it had the tone and choice of words that clearly showed this is a self-promotional write-up with many beefed-up exaggerations. "Her personal life was just as interesting and diverse."  [hahaha!]  Clearly a piece to show off, "here, look at me, I'm on wikipedia!" Qwrk (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read WP:HOLE? JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good one and new to me. Thank you! Qwrk (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article does not speak for itself in explaining why she is notable, and a review of the sources does not support general notability.
 * Excellent analysis. Thank you especially for providing a characterization for the second source, which I could not access. JFHJr (㊟) 17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails GNG, as per the above analysis by Robert McClenon. Ekdalian (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:17, 6 September 2023 (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.