Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Foek


 * 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__. This is numerically evenly split, but the keeps are very weak; many contain nothing more than an assertion of significance, and even those arguments that have a basis in policy don't explicitly provide sources in support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Anton Foek

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

WP:AUTO created back in 2011. From the usual Google searches + Wikipedia Library, I can't find any sources about the subject (as opposed to articles that he's written), let alone anything that meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. The infobox says he has received "a prestigious journalistic award" from Sonoma University but I can't find anything about this. My only two slight reservations (and why I'm putting it through AFD rather than PROD) are (a) that the article has stuck around since Jan 2011, so maybe there's something I'm missing and (b) his 1973 kidnapping in Chile may have received coverage that isn't easily accessible online (e.g. Dutch language sources?). Although even if (b) is the case I think it may be a WP:1E situation. Overall, I think this page should be deleted. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as his article is well sourced and for his remarkable work. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent coverage in depth, with vast majority refs being refbombs to his articles. All biographical info is unreferenced. It looks like written by a connected contributor. - Altenmann >talk 02:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I checked the Dutch newspapers and yes, his 1973 kidnapping was covered. There is also an interview here. And this is what Project Censored, once at Sonoma University, published from Foek. Not a lot to work with but yes, I could give it a try. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As Dutch paper say, this "kidnapping" was due to his own stupidity of pretending to be someone else. Of course he was arrested. Meaning there is no political notability in the event. - Altenmann >talk 02:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding these sources! Very interesting (and amusing). I am still not persuaded he meets GNG. The first source appears to be in a gossip column and of a human interest nature, bearing in mind WP:RSEDITORIAL. The interview may be a GNG source; I don't speak Dutch so it's hard to judge (interviews are tricky as discussed at WP:INTERVIEWS). The Project Censored article is an article by Foek himself and does not meet WP:GNG. Assuming the interview is a reliable secondary source, that's still only one source, which doesn't meet WP:GNG... and further note WP:BLP1E. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I clarified the so-called kidnapping incident, which really was an illegal detention, and provided new and better references. I also added the reference about the article that was included in the 1998 top-25 censored articles. I corrected his name. He has a chinese last name, Jie Sam, which is common in Suriname. With these new citations I believe there is (just) enough independent, substantive coverage to establish his notability. I vote keep. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm still not seeing notability even on these additional sources, as it seems a WP:BLP1E situation where any notability rests on that single event of illegal detention (which, while kind of amusing, doesn't seem of any historical interest). That said, many thanks for your efforts to improve the article; it looks like the discussion is erring on the side of keep so it's good that the article is in much better shape than it was. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. I have made quick improvements to the article. Needs more work but, then again, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improvements to the article. I'm still not persuaded he meets GNG; as noted above, only the interview in the Dutch source seems possibly a reliable source. Other sources in the article seem to me to be just links to his own reporting. I may have missed something though; happy to be pointed to other sources that meet WP:GNG? Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are making the debate about you and that is a mistake. These are your reactions to some of the keeps on this page: I'm still not persuaded, I may have missed something, I'm still not seeing notability, I am still not persuaded. You can rest assured that everyone here read your intro, examined the article, and looked for sources before drawing their own conclusions. Either the intro did not convince or Anton Foek (who this page is about) is too notable for deletion. Or both. In any case, making this debate about your personal position in all of this is not how AfDs should work. We did consider your deletion rationale. Sometimes it is the language gap. Often the fact that folks do not look at Delpher. But that doesn't matter. The debate here is on the article, not for persuading a nominator. Next time better! gidonb (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I came across like I was trying to persuade you of my position. It was more that I was thinking of withdrawing the nomination if I'd missed some sources. Obviously people aren't persuaded by my rationale and that's totally fine. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually it was me who was a bit fierce. That said, the impression you left is less that you try to convince others and more that you insert yourself in the middle of the debate. It doesn't matter if you withdraw or not. When you become really selective in nominating articles, you will feel more at peace at your AfDs! gidonb (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! I'll keep that in mind for next time. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome! gidonb (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as some of these Keeps are very Weak and don't seem to go very deep into evaluating the content and sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television,  and South America.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The person seems to have a bit of presence. The article does definitely need more improvement. killer  bee    09:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Anton Foek has had a very interesting and colourful career in journalism around the world. I agree that the article does not to be edited and improved. Suncheon Boy (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suncheon Boy (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. While Nlwiki does not yet carry an entry on Anton Foek, it is listed twice as a biography it would like to carry. gidonb (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article on Anton Foek on Nlwiki published. Check. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely wonderful! I hope that Nlwiki one day will rise to the level where it fully deserves such quality by you and a few other excellent contributors that write there! gidonb (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I checked all the sources mentioned and found some more, writing the nlwiki page. A couple of independent, substantive sources show that Mr. Foek made a relevant contribution to shaping the Dutch public opinion regarding Latin America in the 1970s. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Working journalist, with sourcing simply confirmation of work done. Kidnapping seems non-notable, rest reads like a CV Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BASIC per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Altenmann. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:VICTIM (of a Chile kidnapping), which states a BLP1E article should be kept only if:
 * The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
 * The coverage of this event did not extend in time, therefore the article fails WP:VICTIM.
 * And as for his career as a journalist, none of the sources talk about it in any depth. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:23, 26 December 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.