Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert de Jonge

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. I will replace with a redirect. Mangojuicetalk 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert de Jonge

edit
Norbert de Jonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not notable enough for inclusion. Anything relevant can be merged into Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, SqueakBox 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Again, he has appeared in numerous media articles, the same videos and TV docs as Berg, plus student TV (unsurprisingly) and also has notability as a political figure who has campaigned on all the individual, non PNVD projects listed on his article. People, including yourself have put good work into an article concerning a wholly notable fringe political figure, and this is the third time you have listed a PNVD member in what feels like an equal matter of minutes. --Jim♥Burton 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creation of three articles about the three founders of an extremely small political party is the problem, not their nomination for deletion. There's very little about this guy apart from his involvement in the party. Much of his info is alreay in the party article. I agree that we could easily merge the rest. This is basically "pedo-cruft". We're not here to give minor fringe polticians a soapbox. Delete due to non-notability. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do any of them not meet the criteria for biography? All of them have public, personal dealings beyond their involvement in the PNVD. All are far more notable than half of the sportsmen listed on WP. Jim♥Burton 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are notable beyond their party involvement then the articles shold reflect that. However they don't include anything to indicate that notability. You keep saying they are notable, but we need to see evidence. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:BIO with flying colours. -Jillium 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sqeuekbox's campain is getting out of hand. V.☢.B 19:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent sources. It is just possible that the party might be notable, and a merge and/or redirect might be appropriate, but this article is inadequately supported and gives all the appearance of astroturfing. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG's reasoning. If substantive independent sources can be found, then that may be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: The party itself is barely notable. I fail to see how an independent article on the person is of any use. --Durin 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call to revise votes. I have sourced both de Jonge's expulsion from university, and his own commentary on his party's recent failure, with mainstream sources. I must repeat, he is a much more prominent figure within the netherlands, making multiple appearences on TV. Jim♥Burton 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the material hosted at pnvd.nl/RUN_NDJ/, which we cite, is independent. It's a collection of transcribed documents. Likewise with the martijn.org source. -Jillium 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Guy. To Jim Burton's point, all that needs to be sourced in the article to prove notability. Tempshill 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I just noticed that the political party in question failed to get 570 signatures to get themselves on a ballot. My pet dog could gain more signatures, hence I think this forces an assumption of non-notability on the political party's article as well as the articles on all participants. We should indeed assume this is just astroturfing. Tempshill 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the party; as per Guy and Tempshill, it might be getting press (obviously, considering its viewpoints), but it's still very fringe, and this would probably be better combined with the party article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. The media mentions of him seem to cover only his activities with that party, so it seems better to place the info within that context. There isn't enough coverage of him as a person to make him notable by himself. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Relevant only due to party position. Party article suffices. Even the delete debates are identical. A separate page is not required for each party officer. -Jmh123 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously NN, though a redirect to his party wouldn't be unobjectionable. EliminatorJR Talk 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there seem to be independent sources, as I look at the discussion, so there's no reason to speculate who of the various people in the party is the more important. DGG 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are party leaders of other very minor contemporary NL political parties? If so, keep on that basis alone. If not, has is his notability outside of NL sufficient to meet the Wiki-notability threshold? On another note, the party is in the NL wikipedia but I don't see this man. Maybe I'm looking under the wrong name. I would strongly encourage the Dutch-speaking Wikipedians to write an article for the NL Wikipedia. Dfpc 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just like the other guy. Sources are unreliable, or fail WP:SELF. Possible walled garden. Fails WP:A on the whole. Ohconfucius 10:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the above nomination, merge to the party page Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. Amazingly enough for a "political party" that has never participated in an election, much less won a seat, the party appears notable. But notability is not contagious, and I fail to see anything which warrants a separate article for any of its participants at this time. Serpent's Choice 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Worldwide, there are about 10 publicly-out pedophiles. Ten. I'm not talking about child rapists, but about people who choose to out themselves because of pro-pedophilia related activism. (In comparison, there are 193 states in the world.) If there's any reason to keep this page, it should be because De Jonge is one the most active pedophile activists of the world (together with Lindsay Ashford, Frans Gieles and Marthijn Uittenbogaard), not because of his participation in the party, because then this page should be merged with the PNVD article.
    • Comment If there are only 10 it shows what an extreme minority POV it is, hence fails notability, SqueakBox 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is only one president.
      • Comment Actually, the opposite may be true, particularly since being a voluntarily "out" pedophile very risky and akin to being "out" as a Communist American during the McCarthy era. It is true that Communism was an extreme minority position in 1950s America, but any politician bold enough to step forward and say "I am a Communist" would become notable at the time on that basis alone. Like American Communist politicians of the 1950s, I expect Norbert de Jonge to become a footnote in history and lose his notability within 10-20 years. In the meantime, he is notable. The question is not "is he notable" but rather, does his notability as either an out pedophile or as a leader in a minor political party reach the notability threshold for Wikipedia? I think he does for the pedophile criteria and he might or might not on the political front, depending on how other NL-minority-party leaders are treated in the English Wikipedia. Dfpc 18:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Communists such as Stalin were highly notable in the world during the 50's so the comparison with paedophilia is inaccurate, SqueakBox 18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I should have been clearer: I meant American Communists. The chief officers of the American Communist Party in 1950-1959 would've deserved a place in Wikipedia in the 1950s, even if those same individuals are non-notable today. This is particularly true if they were harassed or suppressed, as American Communists were in the 1950s or leaders of this party were in recent years. Dfpc 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my response to SqueakBox 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC). Dfpc 18:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relevant only due to party position. --Fredrick day 10:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: There were two parallel AfD's, both recently closed as Merge to Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marthijn Uittenbogaard and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad van den Berg. This would tend to militate for a similar Merge close here, although of course it doesn't require it. Herostratus 15:15, 24 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norbert_de_Jonge&oldid=1136109270"