Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenna Vanhoutte


 * 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   Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination which isn't going to close any way other than keep, and there's no purpose keeping it open. If someone can make a policy-based case for deletion, feel free to re-nominate. &#8209; Iridescent 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fenna Vanhoutte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A:7 Unremarkable Person... This Person Rides A Bike, Non-Professionally, Does That Make This Person Remarkable? Evan Daniel Collett 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep rider competes for a professional team (List of 2016 UCI Women's Teams and riders) and so meets WP:NCYC. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - A666 : along with these other non-notable bike riders here and here No wait, Keep as there are plenty of news hits to improve the article, if only I could speak a bit more Dutch. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An awful lot of those look like passing references to me - in particular placings in races. There is at least one which looks as if it offers more in depth coverage but my Flemish and Dutch are non-existent. But the majority aren't exactly in depth coverage to meet the GNG per se. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I ran some of them through Google Translate, which confirms taking part in major tournaments which would seem to qualify WP:NCYCLING, but I wouldn't use that to directly expand the article, it needs a native speaker. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt that she does meet WP:NCYCLING - the problem is that this, like all the sports criteria, is only indicative of someone who might meet the GNG, not, by itself, a qualification for an article is reliable sources can't be found. The FAQ at the top of WP:ATH makes this clear. In this case I have no doubt that the one (or possibly two) really in depth article(s) we have will probably suffice to do that - but if those didn't exist then it could be argued that the GNG isn't, at present, met. Sorry - it's no big deal at all: note that I have not registered any form of vote here and will not do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject meets general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete? Why Keep This Article? Can We Really Say That This Person Is Remarkable Because They Ride Their Bike With Friends? They May Be Part Of A "Professional" Team, But Who Decides If It's Really "Professional" And Is That Professional Cycling Team Famous? Does It Have Its OWn Wikipedia Page? Evan Daniel Collett 16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I reply, can you please say it without using a capital letter for each single word. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The nom is being a right twat (see my talkpage) and is still upset that I made this AfD nom on his shitty article: Articles for deletion/$uicideBoy$.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 19:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've justed spotted they've been blocked too. BTW, the subject of this AfD passes WP:NCYC, as a female rider who rides for a professional team. Happy days.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 19:05, 15 November 2016 (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.