Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regine De Clercq


 * 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. Tone 06:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Regine De Clercq

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. None of the current sources are significant coverage. WP:BEFORE does not turning up reliable, independent sources. Zero hits in Google News. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Being chair-in-office of the Global Forum on Migration and Development seems notable, but it does seem hard to find detailed sources... Furius (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: As per Furuis, being a chair-in-office of the Global Forum on Migration and Development is a notable position and can be counted towards notability. Purosinaloense T/K 18:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lacks significant coverage by third party sources, therefor clearly fails GNG. Her position alone can not justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article because without any supplemental information, there is no substance to the article. Throast (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 13:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm quite certain that chairing the Global Forum on Migration and Development would be a sufficient notability claim if the article could be sourced to enough evidence of reliable source coverage about her work in the role to get her over WP:GNG, but it is not such an "inherently" notable position that it should entitle her to keep an article that's based entirely on the self-published content of her own employers in lieu of any media attention being paid to her by journalists. Even "inherent" notability still isn't "person doesn't have to have any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing at all", it's "we know for a fact that the person has better GNG-worthy reliable sourcing than the article is actually using in its current form". Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2021 (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.