Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel van der Horst

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. Michig (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel van der Horst[edit]

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

I have reviewed this article and found it lacking notability. He has not been the subject of any published, non-trivial secondary source which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This athlete has had trivial coverage by a secondary source consisting of a listing in a data-base-type website with wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, most likely compiled by a fan or loose association. Youtube and facebook gave the most returns on google. The sport of darts does not even appear on the WP: Notability (sports) article. bpage (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one sentence wonder per nom... Roberticus talk 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms spot on analysis - All in all no evidence of Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable competition darts player. There is no specific notability guideline for darts players per WP:NSPORTS, so darts players must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for inclusion. In this case, there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2014 (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.