Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christoffel van wijk


 * 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. JForget 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Christoffel van wijk

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established. No references and google searches provide few results. Article seemingly created by a relative and comprises mostly a list of family members and property. noq (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. This is not so simple--the Basters are of course highly notable and interesting, and the name of the subject pops up in this one photograph in French and Dutch wikis on this topic. But none of those wikis have any kind of documentation that would pass muster here. The Dutch wiki, for instance, offers not a shred of verification (which, unfortunately, is typical there) and only offers this external link, . On the Internets, I can't find anything--nothing in Google News and Google Books, and the one hit in Google Scholar goes to a self-published, online book on the Rehobothbasters.org site--with the same, aforementioned image on the cover. (The bibliography of that book contains only a few entries specific to the Basters, half of them unpublished theses, so there's little hope there for notability.) Finally, our subject's name (search in combination with "baster") pops up plenty on the internets, but I have not seen anything reliable that will help this article pass the notability standard. (And did I mention that the article itself offers not a shred of evidence?) Drmies (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment would very much like to see this article sourced. Billbowery (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, members of notable groups aren't necessarily notable by themselves. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no need to relist this one any further. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2009 (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.