Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henk van de Ven

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Henk van de Ven

Henk van de Ven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References consist of three news articles about his election, council confirmation of mayoralty, opening a museum, and a self-published source. These do not satisfy the criterion of "significant press coverage" as required in

WP:POLITICIAN. If all he has done is to get elected and open a museum, notability has not been established. WWGB (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is ridiculous. The reason that the references are so low is because that it is still in development! There is also "significant press coverage" as well. Notability is assured. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I eagerly await further "significant press coverage", other than the revelation that he plays golf! WWGB (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor of reasonably large city, sufficient sources to pass GNG, should have been tagged for expansion and additional referencing rather than being nominated for deletion. This kind of nomination of a notable person because the nominator can't be arsed doing any research is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My "arse", as you so eloquently put it, has searched for evidence that the subject is more than a regional political hack. My arse could not find any further evidence. WWGB (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By 'regional political hack' I hope you mean mayor of Albury. You either haven't done enough research or don't like Albury. I don't think the latter is true. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have currently been doing a lot of edits to improve the page. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are a few sources regarding his suspension from a local golf club but I can't find the sort of coverage that is required by
    WP:GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Saying that it meets the standards is not proof that it does. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm open to convincing here, but I don't see the coverage myself. I don't think being mayor of Albury makes him automatically notable, especially as it's not a directly elected position. The creator says "there are others: keep looking". Well, OK, I've looked, without success. Maybe you could actually provide some? What is in the article right now is not sufficient. It's true that it's incumbent upon AfD participants to do some research themselves, but it's also true that it's hardly useful to withhold evidence if you have it (especially if it helps your cause!). Frickeg (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I can find with a Google search. BTW I have found no written ones yet.:

I also have seen a few articles with fewer. A bad example, a better example, another, R. Kandaswami and Stephen Canessa. I'm sure there are plenty more. None of these get over 3 sources, compared to my 16! All I have to do now is get information from them and add that to the article. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. I would want to see a degree of coverage from a non-local media body, say the SMH. Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
References van de Ven as deputy mayor, and this is non-local. This too. The article now cites a primary secondary and tertiary source. BTW is this self-published source? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quality, not the quantity, of the references is what is important. This source was added as a non-local citation[17] to "van de Ven was first elected to Council in 2004 and then served four terms as Deputy Mayor", but all it supports is "van de Ven was" and "Deputy Mayor". It's redundant as the existing citation already supports the sentence. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A tertiary source? I am intrigued. What would that be? WWGB (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While making my last post I noticed that some of the content in the article had been copied almost word for word from this page, which constitutes a
copyright violation. Accordingly, the content has been removed, leaving only two sentences in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, I made a mistake. There is no tertiary. But I am working on emulating the copy-and-pasted information to Wikpedia. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And This source does support he was deputy mayor for a while along with this page. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you two even seen these? They all have 3 refs or less! The Henk van de Ven page has 6 for a lede and an infobox!! Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
National and state politicians are inherently notable. They require a minimum of one source to prove they filled that role. Local pollies, on the other hand, have a higher burden of proof. To be notable they are people about whom "significant press coverage" has been written, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. WWGB (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They have! I have already shown you my list which is written by at least one non-local source and in-depth. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, Koavf himself edited the page. BTW guys 7 refs for a lede and an infobox. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's the quality of the references, not the number. Simply adding sources doesn't prove notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are of quality. Two government ones, one self-published the rest are a mix of more than one news source. Notability is proven. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. You said BTW guys 7 refs for a lede and an infobox as if this was in some way impressive. It's not. There are TV episodes with more refs and an infobox. Of the sources in the article, there are two from Albury City Council confirming his position on Council. This is not unusual for councillors. There is another from a local newspaper also confirming his election by other councillors. Also not unusual. The same newspaper editor also tweeted about the election, and this tweet is repeated in the newspaper article. Together these really count as just a single source. Then there is a press release about the Murray Art Museum Albury getting a facelist. Van de Ven is not the subject of that press release and his mention does not constitute significant coverage. Similarly, the source from psnews.com.au addresses the museum's facelift and the mention of van de Ven is not significant coverage in that source either. The ENZED source is just a staff directory, so it isn't significant. The two Albury City Council sources and the ENZED source are primary sources. They are not
WP:GNG. Of all the sources, only the newspaper report/tweet really goes to establishing notability. I actually found better sources online for me, and I'm mentioned in two Wikipedia articles by name. Just because you can find sources for someone doesn't mean those sources establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please give me a few hours to form a reply. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Borderline archive source? That's independent. And the MAMA article references van de Ven being mayor and opening the museum which means he is doing mayoral duties. And I'm sure they will be a few written sources I haven't even found yet. You are just bedding Wikipedia policy to suit your needs. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 21:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put some context around this gentleman. He was elected mayor less than five weeks ago. Prior to that event, sources identify that he was a migrant, small businessman, golfer and deputy mayor. None of these are of themselves notable roles. So any notability must be derived since his election. Being a mayor is not itself notable, it is about what is achieved in the position. During those five weeks, he has co-opened a museum. We really need longer so see how his tenure unfolds. If he has significant achievements, like introducing major legislation or leading a new development, then his notability is established. After just five weeks as mayor, he has not had time to establish notability. 202.47.84.1 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the "About us" page, Borderline says content is satirical, parody, factual and occasionally beyond. On the page that you linked to earlier,[18] the linked stories look very amateurish and the site owner's ABN has been cancelled. All of this makes the site look like a
reliable source and therefore can't be used to establish notability. As for the MAMA article, that certainly demonstrates that he was mayor but, as pointed out above by 202.47.84.1, being mayor isn't in itself notable. This is especially true when the mayor is elected by a vote of other councillors rather than by a public vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay, it looks like this page is going to go. (For now). Expect this page to back in six months or so when there are more sources. Should I request deletion to speed up the process? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 23:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, because there is another keep vote. Just let the discussion run its course. Frickeg (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny how people keep editing the article. I guess they want it to die happy. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 02:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We prefer to keep articles if we can, so we still keep editing them in the hope that we can improve them. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe this page can stay. It certainly is much better now. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 04:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henk_van_de_Ven&oldid=1136111574"