Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Hendrikx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bart Hendrikx

Subject appears to be non-notable. Page was PROD'd; tag was removed in questionable faith. Note that Bart hendrikx (with a lowercase 'h') has been deleted recently. Note also that there exist indications of edit-warring, either vandalism or bad-faith editing, and COI. An editor whose user name corresponds to the subject has been blocked in connection with this page. Note finally that this nom is on basis of non-notability and that other details are given here for context, not in support of the nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Borderline delete. The references are a mess, but many of them (basically from the same feed) are a genuine, non-trivial, apparently independent coverage in the Dutch press. The Rolling Stone mentions are genuine but largely in passing, and everything else seems questionable. I'd say that doesn't pass WP:BIO but he may be the sort who would pass it soon. The article is a disaster, though, and if kept should probably be stubbified. Rigadoun (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Yes, the formatting is a mess. O the horror! I'm trying to fix it up. The references hold kernels of notability. Very marginal case. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and stub - multiple Dutch sources. Addhoc (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. The article has potential, and it appears that the subject passes WP:N and WP:BIO. Cleanup is certainly in order. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't look notable to me and the author certainly appears to have a conflict of interest. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. The article has potential, and it appears that the subject passes WP:N and WP:BIO when I look at the Talk page. Regarding apparently independent coverage in the Dutch press, I can say that this subject had mayor coverage in Dutch Press and that they all are credible articles. I cleaned up the article.

-- toos53 (Talk) - 16:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


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.