Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg


 * 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 keep. S warm  we ♥ our hive  07:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am nominating this article for deletion for two reasons. Firstly, I do not believe that there are sufficient sources to establish the notability of the article's subject. Secondly, I believe that the article is problematic from a BLP standpoint. It is not written in the sober, neutral way one would expect an encyclopedia article to be written; it is more like an attack piece. The entire first half of the article is sourced to truthwinsout, a gay activist website, which is not exactly a neutral or unbiased source. The truthwinsout page that is used as a source is an attack on Aardweg, full of personal abuse. I think that if that source were removed as unacceptable, there would be almost nothing left of the article - just a sentence or two accusing Aardweg of having extremist opinions. If there are no sources that could be used to write a proper article then there shouldn't be an article at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep Aardweg is a controversial figure representing a minority view. He has published several books and has a reasonable coverage in independent sources. I agree on the biased view in the article and will edit it. Inwind (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see a possible path to WP:GNG here — namely, vastly improved reliable sourcing that sits much more squarely on the books that he's claimed to have written — but the nominator is correct that if the bulk of the sourcing is to activist websites with WP:NPOV issues, then that's not appropriate support for a Wikipedia article. Of the two Irish Times citations, further, #4 just briefly namechecks his existence while failing to be about him — leaving us with only #2 for quality sourcing, but one source can't GNG a person by itself if they aren't automatically covered by a subject-specific inclusion criterion. So I'm willing to reconsider this if the sourcing can be significantly improved from where it's sitting right now — but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not an acceptable or convincing argument. You have not demonstrated that sources exist to write a proper, neutral article: just what is this "reasonable coverage in independent sources"? Simply asserting that it's there doesn't make that true. If you want the article to be kept, you are going to have to do better than that. Despite your recent edits, the article is still written with an obvious and gratuitous lack of neutrality, for example, the statement that Aardweg has "published several books on what he sees as the evils of homosexuality." That someone wrote several books does not make him notable by itself, by the way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and revise as per Inwind's offer to revise. Seems like the SLPC write up constitutes a NPOV. Theredproject (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The SPLC blog posting is not an "NPOV." It is an attack on Aardweg. In effect, you seem to be saying that it's fine to base an article about a living person on attacks against them. Remember that BLP exists to protect everyone, including people who have anti-gay views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and revise as suggested. Obviously notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, there's nothing obvious about it. See Bearcat's detailed reasoning above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:47, 24 July 2015 (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.