Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamiel Cornelissen

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. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).  Sandstein  19:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiel Cornelissen

Kamiel Cornelissen (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)

No coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
  WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Cornelissen meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The
    WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see only around 100 Google hits for "Kamiel Cornelissen" in total. A few of them look like they might be reliable sources (it's tough to tell even with Google Translate), but they're just trivial mentions, anyway. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and, once again, I'll say that a WikiProject's local consensus can't override Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: You may want to retry that search, because I'm getting about twenty thousand. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The initial number that Google reports is meaningless. Once you click through the results a few times by skipping to page 10 or so, you frequently find that there's less than 100 results total. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2016 (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.