Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willem Ouweneel


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Willem Ouweneel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There doesn't seem to be WP:BASIC notability. The cited sources are interviews with the subject, quotes from his publications, and an opinion piece critcizing him. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity,  and Netherlands.  Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 04:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG, Not a notable person. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The degree of coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIAL, falling short of satisfying WP:GNG requirements. While there is some coverage of the subject, it does not amount to WP:SIGCOV and is WP:ROUTINE in nature. Overall, these point to a lack of subject WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Keeping the article would be justified if the subject had independent WP:SIGCOV (i.e. above and beyond WP:TRIVIAL) thus meeting WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG standards. However, the nature of existing coverage of the subject is WP:ROUTINE in nature, failing WP:SIGCOV standards that would be necessary to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Reliable source coverage would need to amount to WP:SIGCOV in order to establish subject notability, and at this point I see no evidence of that. The only sources I found amounted to WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ROUTINE. Since the coverage is only routine and trivial, the significant coverage threshold needed to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY standards is not met. Keeping the article would require meeting WP:GNG requirements in the form of WP:SIGCOV, which is simply not the case here. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (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.