Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendrik de Moy

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik de Moy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. He is mentioned in a few books as a relative to Rubens, but indepth information about him can only be found in the journal of the Antwerp Archivists, which is not an independent source (an organization writing about someone in the history of that organisation). City archivists do a valuable job, but not a very high profile one and thus get little attention, and this one, despite his family connections, is no exception. Fram (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think the notability is very clear. Then you can delete tons of historic figures. This person is Stub.--Carolus (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Carolus. He is obviously notable in Antwerp. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence for this? No one in Antwerp apart from a few archivists actually knows or cares who Hendrik de Moy is, he is a minor footnote in the city history. Fram (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you prove "knows or cares who Hendrik de Moy is", nice attitude, noted. The Evidence is very clear and proven.--Carolus (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - What evidence? The only source with significant attention for De Moy (not just a passing mention in one line) is the 19th century article in the journal of the Antwerp Archivists, which is not an independent source as he was an Antwerp archivist. If there is no other good source about De Moy, then the "evidence is very clear and proven" that no one really cares about Hendrik de Moy, at least not enough to write at some length about him. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. After a source search I've found an academic article he was mentioned in [1] He also gets a mention here [2], in a bibliography here (from the 1860s) [3]. Also Belgian/Dutch sources I do not understand, and lots of genealogy websites, and had a street named after him in Antwerp. I agree it's a borderline case, but I fall on the side of him qualifying for WP:GNG since there were some diverse sources other than the city of Antwerp over a long time interval. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep per SportingFlyer. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2018 (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.