Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Talpe


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Louis Talpe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources do not independently verify the subject's notability, being themselves not notable. No WP:RS here unfortunately. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  08:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources themselves are significant in verifying the person in question's notability. Googling him in "google news" will show his name appears more than a dozen times in independent sources. The sources I chose to include in the site are significant, albeit in another language. I believe the user Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is biased against me and has been edit warring with me for a few days now. He also claimed that I vandalized the page Louis Talpe (the person in question) when I did nothing. I actually created the page. However, he deleted external links and references and tried to get the page deleted several times. His behavior on wikipedia is perhaps questionable. Anonymous032 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: covered (not just mentioned) in many reliable publications in the Netherlands. Esquivalience t 20:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The Dutch coverage is good, but in my opinion not quite enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Joseph2302 which guideline are you referring to? Sigificant coverage / reliability / sources / independence of subject / presumed ? Anonymous032 (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a substantial amount of coverage. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying it of course does not make it so. I refer you to WP:GNG. Thanks for removing IMDB claim. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep There is a lot of coverage, and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's behavior seems questionable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that User talk:71.202.1.48 is the same account as Anonymous032, so he is attempting to manipulate consensus here with an extra !vote. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend blocking the nominator temporarily, since he made disruptive edits to the page and now this deletion request.Anonymous032 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - subject easily meets GNG; significant coverage of every career move, , or anything he does ,   —Мандичка YO 😜 06:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - As shown with the links by User:Wikimandia, this actor is covered by reliable sources which write about him as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 5 June 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.