Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron de Wael


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Baron de Wael

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent verifiable sources found in the article. My Google searches also pointed at nothing. Is this is a personal project of someone wants be a baron? Or maybe I didn't search good enough? In any case, we need sources for the core information in the article. gidonb (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * KeepNot the sort of person you will find in a google search. Dloh cierekim  18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, a Baron born in 1702 may not have a lot written online. Sourcing is done through musty books on dusty shelves, probably down back corridors of universities and local historical caches. There maybe something in Google books. I don't know how they do archiving Dutch predigital age records. Probably the best course in such instances is to not AfD, but to seek help from those knowledgeable of such matters. I did ask the creator for sourcing ab initio. Perhaps, before taking to AfD, it would have been better to establish a dialogue with the user and explain essential nature of citing sources. Dloh  cierekim  18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that a person does not appear in searches is rationale to delete, not a rationale to keep. You say that this person might be notable because he is not the kind of person who can be found on Google, but shouldn't notability be established? And how does this support a keep? The creator now uploads a lot genealogical links. They may establish that the subject of the article has existed. I do not see proof that he is notable. You elude to this yourself in your more compelling comment below. Please reconsider the opinion above in the interest of WP's quality. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect to before: there clearly was a before. This article was prodded. The creator just removed it. It's his right but I think this should go together with serous sourcing. The article didn't provide proof of notability and still doesn't. An AfD is the next step in cases like this. It shouldn't be removed and explicitly says so. Creator removed the AfD message 3 times! This person does not come across as WP friendly. He doesn't seem to care about rules and community decisions. The article rambles on about North of the Netherlands. It's a qualified disaster. I would have improved it, I often do with people who work on their first WP project, I'm no deletionist, but could not find proof that the person is notable. So AfD was my best bet and still is. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment Clearly creator does not understand how to cite his sources. In a panic, he is now trying to source. I recommend patience as he is relying on paper sources. Dloh cierekim  18:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Most of the article takes the form of a background essay or are weasel words ("an influential political figure", a claim supported only by the fact that he at some point received the title of Baron). I don't believe the Dutch Wikipedia covers this person at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The sourcing has greatly improved and I think has become significant enough to show notability since the AfD began in terms of depth. Formatting is a different matter. Unfortunately, some of it is in Dutch, and if memory serves, German. I cannot read Dutch and my German is inadequate. Dloh cierekim  03:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The sourcing has greatly improved, has it? I'm seeing mostly genealogy sites for "referencing", not reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I call upon User:Dlohcierekim to withdraw his support for this article as its sourcing is less than flimsy and built upon trust where no basis for trust was established. Your claim that we should keep an article because the topic is difficult to verify runs against everything we stand for. You're an admin at the English-language Wikipedia, please respect our core principles and assist in reaching community consensus against what may very well be a total distortion of the history of a fine Dutch family. The problem is not that you reach out to this baron-hood pusher. That is really nice of you! The problem is that your reasoning in this discussion does not hold water. gidonb (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the depth and quality of sourcing that it takes. As currently written and sourced, this is much more a genealogy than an encyclopedia article — there's no evidence being shown of reliable source coverage about him at all. Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be locatable online via a Google search — print-only books and newspaper archives are acceptable — but we do have a requirement that reliable sources exist. But that's not what the sources here are, and nothing stated in the article is strong or substantiated well enough to earn him a free presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrated GNG pass either. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment after long digging I've managed to find the obituary of the wife of Evert de Waal, claimed to be baron and baroness in our amateur article and the linked family trees. In the obituary nothing of this sort is mentioned. A regular lady who died, the widow of her husband Evert, mother of J. (Jan), mother in law of A.C.E, more regular folks. The obituary was published in De Telegraaf, the most common Dutch paid newspaper. My concern is that we are assigning a regular family titles that most of its members did not ask for because of an outlier who aggressively (for example by time and again removing stuff that shouldn't be removed) seeks to push an agenda. Imho we should protect this family, as we aim to protect all living subjects, from unproven claims. gidonb (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I take your point but I think you misunderstood mine. Just because internet sources are not available do not mean the subject is not notable. I was urging above patience and to allow the creator time to source as well as he could. It's been days. If the sourcing still does not hold up, at least he had time to try. I would like to review the sourcing, but I'm working-sleeping till some time Monday afternoon. BTW this is a first. It is the first time at AfD I've been criticized for calling for a "Keep" instead of a "Delete". Sorry if I sound incoherent, work is distracting me. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles don't earn an exemption from having to show proper reliable sourcing just because it's theoretically possible that better sources might exist somewhere — if articles didn't have to show proper sourcing, and instead an article could be kept on the grounds that better sources might become possible, then we would have to keep every single article that anybody ever tried to create about anything at all. To get an article kept, accordingly, it's not enough to just say that better sources might exist somewhere — you need to do the work to find those better sources first, and then the article can be created if and when there's enough sourcing present in it. It's not "create with bad sources and earn inclusion freebie just in case better ones might turn up someday" — finding the better sources comes first and then the article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Dlohcierekim, I do not think I misunderstood. Offline sources can be legitimate, however, it should be clear what they support. These genealogical documents support the idea that one Sijmon de Wael existed but it is unclear if he was important, if he was a baron, and if his descendants were baron as well. Please do not forget that Holland has among the highest internet penetration rates worldwide, books are online, as are many newspaper and magazine archives. I could not find Sijmon de Wael in these. This does not prove but may indicate that his importance is limited. In any case, it does not strengthen the case to keep the article. As the topic of the article is vague – is it Sijmon (his name is not in bold and is not in the title), is it his alleged baron-hood, are it his descendants who are in bold? – it is even unclear what we are trying to  source. With no documents found and strange claims made, this case should be straightforward according to WP policies. Wishing you all the best, also at work! gidonb (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Working/sleeping tillMonday afternoon. The thing won't close till 5/9. I'll go oever erery thng when fully awake and not sneaking around at work. Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you can join the community quest for quality! gidonb (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck keep per above discussion.Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2017 (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.