Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Declercq


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 13:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Judith Declercq

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO, no assertion of notability of this provincial level government agency administrator. It appears to be part of a web of family history articles that do not seem to be encyclopedic. EricSerge (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see grounds for notability. ONE/Kind en Gezin is probably a notable organization by our standards, but being provincial president of it doesn't confer notability. Article doesn't indicate sources to meet WP:GNG and Google/GBooks search doesn't reveal anything. Wikipedia only holds articles about people who meet notability standards (see WP:BIO), and even if someone has led an interesting or worthwhile life, they may not qualify for a Wikipedia article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (by the creator of this page) : What may be important to consider, though it was not explicitly mentioned in the article as I feared it would trigger a different level of discussion, is that one should not forget that she was born and became a teacher at a college (it is now part of the association of the Catholic University of Leuven) during times before the emancipation of women in our society. During her days she has achieved noteworthy accomplishments and I feel like it would be incorrect to judge her accomplishments through modern eyes of the year 2014. What she has done and who she has become at that time is absolutely remarkable. Because I had originally started this article I do not want to vote nor interfere (so you can ignore my vote), but just want to share these thoughts and facts with you. We should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the article I have now made a remark concerning emancipation and have added categories reflecting the organization she chaired that was established to defend human and children's rights.Gaverke14 —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We have to judge not only if she was unusual, but how unusual and significant. If she was considered a real pioneer by many people, then her actions would probably be reported in reliable sources, as the actions of many other pioneering women have been. Women's studies is a major academic subject these days with many scholarly articles and books published about women's achievements in many different fields. Wikipedia's general rules for notability means that we only write about people whom other people (academics, published authors, journalists, etc) consider to be notable, and without published sources saying that her achievements were significant, I don't think we can have an article on her even if she was an interesting and unusual person. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * AGREED. (posted by the author of the article) Please kindly delete the article. It is certainly so that she has been cited as a person and for her activities and position in the printed literature, but I do not have such references apart from the one cited in the current version of the article. Therefore I suggest you delete the article and allow others to find such references in the future and possibly post the article again with inclusion of good references. Gaverke14   —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep may it help : I have included 4 refs in which the early history of the school for nurses is described, including the importance of prof Judith Declercq and the other pioneers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.127.44 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (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.