Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Middelkoop

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Middelkoop

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not pass the WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE by WP:NEXIST, that included Google, Google News, Google Books, and Delpher, came up with only internal scouting and self-published works. Strange that this could go unnoticed since 2016! An association football manager by the same name is better known and still fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any sources outside the organization he worked with providing any coverage of him. Wikipedia is not supposed to be based completely on organizations publishing coverage on their own volunteers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have lots of articles that have been tagged as having no sources since before Jan. 1, 2010. That an article has gone six years in a sub-standard state of existence is no suprise at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that many articles are unreferenced. That is true but not a major problem as long as WP:NEXIST is met. This article went without notability-supporting sources entirely, at the very least to the extent we could reasonably find. Thanks for addressing my concern! gidonb (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears to be cited, though I can't read French. There may be sources in Dutch, but I don't know. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since when are a few citations an indication of notability? Reports get cited, as do self-published books. Do their authors become notable? There may be sources also doesn't fly. gidonb (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2022 (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.