Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol Goossen


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Pol Goossen

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable actor. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - The above is the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. No sources except his own web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Seriously, if you just search Belgian websites (ie: search google via "Pol Goossen" site:*.be and then translate, you will find it is very easy to demonstrate notability.  Notability isn't a function of being covered by English speaking media.  WP:BEFORE requires we try a little harder before we nominate, particularly with foreign subjects (or don't nom if we aren't sure how to search for these topics).  This is why I removed the PROD tag, IMDB shows he has been in 985 episodes of a TV show, that should tell you that other coverage is at least "likely", if you search hard enough.  These were just on the first page:, , , .  I am sure I can provide another dozen if needed, but that should clearly establish notability.  Article needs work, not deletion.  Dennis Brown (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a read of WP:ENTERTAINER. Existence of sources does not indicate notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG clearly says otherwise. He has been discussed by multiple outlets, which is notable under GNG.  If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.  Again, the sources aren't in English, and that is never a reason to not consider them nor their content, particularly when it is pretty easy to translate them from Dutch.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But WP:ENTERTAINER trumps WP:GNG. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. They encourge editors to be diligent in their searches for sources. And notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article, no matter the language.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense to me. Why have the individual notability guidelines if WP:GNG always takes precedence? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N is made up of many sections and subsections and yes, some do seem to be at odds with others, or sometimes even with policy. In respecting the header of all guidelines that encourages common sense, the SNGs have been built over time to outline those circumstances where a topic might fail GNG though not being the recipient of wide coverage, yet still might be worthy of notice.
 * Here's the way I see it... The GNG defines cases where topic notability is usually quite apparent, and the SNGs define those topics where notability is less obvious but still worth consideration per common sense.
 * The simplistic formula for notability could be written "meeting GNG = notability, but if not meeting GNG, then meeting SNG = notability".
 * And conversely, "not meeting GNG OR SNG = non-notability".
 * Per policy, notability assertions must be verifiable in reliable sources, but the GNG is not a "trump", and the SNGs do not themselves mandate SIGCOV. SNGs do not "trump" the GNG.  GNG does not "trump" the SNGs. They are both parts of WP:N and are intended to work in concert with each and should not be seen as disharmony. A topic can fail a SNG and meet the GNG to be notable. A topic can fail GNG and meet SNG to be notable.
 * The guidelines are not a perfect system (which is why they are not policy), but they have been established over years of discussion and the success of Wikipedia shows they work reasonably well.
 * That said, the topic of this particular AFD meets both, just not in English.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since the parent was addressing me initially, I want to be clear and say I 100% agree with Schmidt's interpretation of the guidelines. He has phrased it quite clearly, much more so than I could, so I won't add to it.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The individual has done numerous film and television projects and is written of in multiple non-English sources. A long and verifiable career in film and television projects meets WP:ENT. Notable to Belgium is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia, and being improvable rarely requires an article to be deleted. The man may be WP:UNKNOWNHERE, but he IS known there... and that's what counts.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - coverage noted above establishes notability. Secondary guidelines are just that, secondary. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand why this was relisted. The "delete" opinions are just assertions, but the "keeps" came with evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (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.