Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly van der Veer

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. Ultimately a rough consensus formed to delete this article. There was discussion of a redirect that gained some traction, but I consider it to be short of reaching consensus here. Nothing prevents an editor from boldly creating the redirect if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly van der Veer

[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)

Article doesn’t cite any sources so that’s red flag number one. In trying to find sources... nothing validates any claim in this article and nothing written about her goes beyond a paragraph at most or the links are dead. My Dutch skills are primitive but I know what I read. Trillfendi (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can't build articles just on the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this article has a current issue of not using good sources but checking with google news it seems there are plenty of RS about the subject that could be used. In general if issues with an article can be improved, it shouldn't be deleted. Sources are primarily in Dutch though which may be why they aren't being used currently. Rab V (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I looked at the Dutch sources and they were of no value to a Wikipedia article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by no value to Wikipedia? I looked up some English info about a few of the publishers and they seemed fine to be used for RS. Rab V (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship gossip. Sexual escapades. A club appearance. It’s no coincidence that other language translation articles also have 0 sources, including the Dutch one. People may try to make notability out of “she was the trans woman on Big Brother 18 years ago” but there’s not even any significant coverage that goes into that. Appearance doesn’t equal notability. Trillfendi (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the kind of content that comes from sources, including RS, that cover celebrities. Rab V (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these “sources” are not reliable they are tabloids and still offer absolutely no verification of any statement in this article (hence why it remians unsourced). Trillfendi (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (Dutch TV series)? Besides that she doesn't appear to have done much of note. The best English-language source I could find online was this, and while I can't say for the Dutch-language sources, if it's just "celebrity gossip" then I hardly think that makes for a credible claim of notability. For what it's worth I do have a print source from an English magazine, but I still don't think that's enough. PC78 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirection is a good idea. Trillfendi (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete & redirect though. Is there any reason to keep non-notable BLP content? PC78 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was up to me it would just be delete. Trillfendi (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1 !vote for each of delete, keep, and redirect -> need more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to count my !vote as delete. I don't feel that the article or its edit history are worth preserving given the complete lack of reliable sources, though I do think that once deleted the page should be recreated as a valid redirect to Big Brother (Dutch season 3). PC78 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of independent sources. Add sourced content about her at Big_Brother_(Dutch_TV_series) yes, but nothing here is reliably sourced. Also, the actual content here speaks to her non-notability. " the most prominent transsexual person in the Netherlands who rose to fame after competing" in some TV show. Rose to fame? What fame?? "Competed" in a TV show? Didn't even win. Possibly she has a fan base. Sources? " revived her music career "? "appearing in over six television shows"? "established a website "? "Other ventures ... however, was not very successful at the box office." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2019 (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.