Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sietse Bakker (2nd nomination)

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. The keep arguments lack support in Wikipedia policy DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sietse Bakker

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

The subject fails WP:NBIO - as an earlier AfD concluded anyway. This is just a media industry person doing his job, which occasionally involves appearing on TV, but being in the big box does not make one notable - not unless one is discussed by other independent sources, and this person is not. The best source here is an interview related to "In 2009 he was chosen as one of the 25 most successful young entrepreneurs of the Netherlands." This not a major award, not enough to estabilish him notable, and the interview is not a quality source (see WP:INTERVIEW). This nomination follows up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive), where his predecessor's bio was deleted, with closing admin concluding "Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant in comparison to someone holding an important office within the industry.that another article about a similar topic is deleted is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is invalid - WP:ITSNOTABLE - this is not a vote. I explained that his position is not a criteria to keep it, and cited an example of a similar bio that got deleted. This has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFFEXIST, rather - SIMILARSTUFFGOTDELETED :) I also noted that the sources present do not seem sufficient for WP:BIO requirement, neither does the award. You do not address any of those points. In essence, your vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't even make sense. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person is not just a former executive supervisor, but was actually an entrepreneur who created the website ESCToday before his role as an exec. Internet searches verify that Bakker quit his role as exec supervisor for the EBU earlier this year. He is also an author of 2 books, How To Live Wow!? (2011) and The Sparkle (2016). So if we are going to delete an author, then will the nominator start AfDing other authors such as Stephen King, Beatrix Potter, and many thousands of authors? The nom's rationale that the "subject fails WP:NBIO" can also be debunked, per WP:AUTHOR which is permissible. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 12:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NAUTHOR does not state that being an author is notable. His works need to be significant. Care to show that they are? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that we had to play "show and tell" in these kind of debates. The WP:BURDEN is not with me, Piotrus, it is with you to demonstrate the works are not significant. This person is not a TV Executive, to which you are using as a claim for deletion. In fact Bakker was an entrepreneur first, just like Richard Branson. He was then recruited by a broadcasting organisation, and quit that job to become an author and recently the CEO of Scrn - a digital agency. All of which is detailed and verified in his official website. And let's just remind you of something too. You should stop with the discouraging towards others comments for the reasons to keep. You are turning things into a WP:BATTLEGROUND which is suppose to be avoidable, and it is not helpful that your actions come across as intimidation. People are entitled to voice their opinion to keep, just like you are to voice your opinion in your nomination. But to intimidate other's by basically knocking down their reasons is unacceptable. Read their comments, yes. Attack them, no. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 13:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, Wesley, there was no overt hostility from Piotrus. Attack the argument, not the person. I fail to see how one rebuttal is enough to make this discussion a "battleground."

Also, on the contrary, the burden of proof of your argument, that Bakker is notable because his books are notable, lies on you.

Documentation about Bakker's life taken from his own website is NOT an acceptable argument, and it certainly does not constitute proof of notability. Anybody can write about their own life on their own website.

Your arguments regarding other authors and entrepreneurs are also invalid, as there are tons of authors and entrepreneurs who are not notable. It's not exactly convincing to compare Bakker to Stephen King or Richard Branson. They are household names with a long list of third-party, independent sources that discuss their work and life in detail. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Mr. Gerbear, for being a voice of reason - and for being familiar with the policies. You said everything I would have said, so I can just second your post in its entirety. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bakker is important in the Eurovision world, his notability cannot be established by independent sources, as is required by Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admins: There is a bit of canvassing going on here, which is rather unfair and needs to be taken into consideration, specially the way "votes" are being cast. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to admins: Piotrus went to my talk page AFTER I had made the comments above. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 09:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also false statement by Mr Gerbear. There are plenty of reliable independet sources. A simple search and you find hundreds of them. Also in the article they are present. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could someone please enumerate the sources which show this person is notable, the ones present in the article at this time do not, they show what he has done only, not his significance. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly I don't see enough sources and secondly this is a BIO1E. Notability cannot be inherited. The coverage of the subject is specifically about the Eurovision context. In fact the quality of coverage is like the one a spokesperson gets - covered in context of the company, not in context of themself. There is nothing to show that the subject is independently notable. (The references in the article consist of 1 source to the Eurovision site which is not independent, second - link to an interview on a potentially unreliable site, third - which doesn't work and fourth - to a directory listing of a book. None of this is significant coverage and doesn't justify a separate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 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.