Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny van der Tuuk (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Lots of contributions in here which hold little weight due to either a) incorrect or disproven interpretation of policies or guidelines, or b) simple reference to policy or guidelines with no further elucidation, or c) no reference to policies or guidelines whatsoever. I largely discarded these.

I'm put in a position here where I need to evaluate the interaction between Sportsfan 1234 (SF1234) and Seacactus 13 (SC13) regarding who is correct per policy or guidelines. I'm further hampered by my inability to speak the language of the sources. Prima facie I am inclined to agree with SC13 in their comment at 18:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC), as it does not appear to be an unreasonable position to hold but, more importantly, was not responded to or disproven.

Oaktree b's comment is cause for pause, as is the fact — pointed out by Doczilla — that it was deleted back in 2020 and recreated with minimal changes, but ultimately I can't find a consensus in this discussion to delete. I would encourage this article to be renominated at AfD (at any time) by an interested editor, and a full source review analysis conducted to reach consensus on whether the sources discussed between SF1234 and SC13 constitute significant coverage or not. (There is an excellent table which allows the discussion of sources in AfD discussions, but alas, I cannot find it right now.) 

Daniel (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Danny van der Tuuk
AfDs for this article:


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

Non notable cyclist and has no results that warrant an article. The article was already deleted once and since it was recreated the only result change is a 9th in a national championship. KeepItGoingForward (talk)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling,  and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG, as has competed professionally and at the WorldTour level, and has plenty of significant coverage. Results alone are not a valid rationale for deletion, as coverage also is important. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I vote for deletion as if he meets GNG so then how come the wiki article does not reflect those facts? When I do a search there are not articles about the rider particularly, only varies results which is similar to what you will find for most cyclists at a higher level. All the references in the article are links to results and not about the rider.
 * The rider does not meet any of the significant coverage on Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling:
 * Significant coverage is likely to exist for a male cyclist if he meets:
 * Won a UCI World Tour;
 * Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument;
 * Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;
 * Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship);
 * Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear it does not appear that Danny van der Tuuk has coverage. Someday he might, but at the moment it does not appear so. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just found two sources directly about him, which took about 1 minute to find with only a brief Google search, so there are definitely even more out there. It is important to do a WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion, as the current state of many articles does not reflect the avaiable sources and coverage that exists. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment To add to my reply above the cyclist does not meet Notability_(sports). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItGoingForward (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope your aware that you can't vote since you are the nominator... Come on man, you can't pretend to vote as someone else.Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. For the closing editor: please note that nominator nominated, via graphics managed to put a bold delete inside their nomination, AND !voted once more above. The totality leaves a misleading impression. Nominator: please do NOT argue below my opinion, as you did with the other keep-sayer. gidonb (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG, article could do with some expansion though. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just expanded the article with a variety of sources. Re-enforcing that the subject meets WP:GNG Paulpat99 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets see based on this edit
 * The first source you added, is a team announcement and WP:ROUTINE also fails WP:100WORDS.
 * The second source is a YouTube video.
 * The third, fourth, seventh, ninth, tenth and 16th sources again are WP:ROUTINE, , , , , and fails WP:SIGCOV.
 * The fifth, eighth and 13th sources, , are results page of a race and cannot be used to determine notability, and fails WP:NSPORTS.
 * The sixth and 11th sources, are a basic biography of the person and cannot be used to determine notability, as its primary.
 * The 12th source mentions the subject once, clearly failing WP:SIGCOV.
 * The 14th source, mentions the subject in the title only, another clear fail of WP:SIGCOV.
 * The 15th source, doesn't even mention the subject! Again, another clear fail of WP:SIGCOV.
 * This is a clear fail of WP:NSPORTS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, for these reasons, the article should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Several of these sources are actual articles directly about him, I see sigcov and GNG being met:   . Seacactus 13 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The first one is barely passable. The second one fails. The third and fourth ones fails WP:ROUTINE. One source does not indicate WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV is met. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why the second one fails and the first one looks fine to me, source 4 does not look to be routine, it discusses details about his personal life, not just coverage of a transfer or result. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the current references are from the UCI, which is a primary source. This articles does not meet GNG. Are there further examples of independent sources? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should not have been re-created. Sources are lacking, as is evidence of notability. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't find any sources, I've tried using Belgian websites, hoping for something in French, but not much turns up. The one source in the article from Ouest France gives a brief description of a race and has a few lines about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * this and this look like coverage sufficient for WP:GNG, so Keep.Jacona (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * does not appear to meet significant coverage, it is more of a trivial mention. is a short mention of Van der Tuuk getting maybe a 50% chance to participate in a race the team he is signed to Equipo Kern Pharma got a wildcard spot on. A 50% chance to be a "servant" rider does not appear to make a person notable. If that was the case, any rider that fills that role in any sort of professional riding capacity would be considered notable, as long as they got some minor coverage of the fact. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * KeepItGoingForward, One of the great things about Wikipedia. Anyone can edit, we can have differences of opinion but still have a WP:CIVIL discussion about it. Thanks for your opinion. — Jacona (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as article has good coverage. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Such as which reference? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: The references that are readily available serve as evidence of notability. Gothamk (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2022 (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.