Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Maria Groot

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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Groot

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unimpressed with the load of AFDs while the RFC is in progress. I know your thoughts on it isn't the only opinion. Subject held countries national title and competed at one of the two most important international pageants. Obviously being the 70s and not an English speaking country there's going to be more of a struggle to find articles. Would suggest keeping your trial balloons to yourself until RFC is dealt with --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The RfC has near uninimous opposition. It is very clear that people do not accept that you can declare some competitions default make someone notable, and ignore the lack of sources. There are not enough sources here to pass GNG so the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It remains unclear what users PageantUpdater and Johnpacklambert are referring to. Please clarify and explain the reason for this nomination. Without clarification and/or rationale it should not be deleted. – Editør (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although the "load of AFDs" and the "RfC" remain unidentified, I believe notability has been established by the additional references to third party sources. – Editør (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I am talking about is the attempt to ram-rod default notability for Miss World competitors that has failed. The article lacks multiple cases of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources and as uch fails the GNG and should be deleted. We don't keep articles just because someone aserts there are sources that are not easy to find that they in no way identify, we keep articles based on sources, of which there are not enough here to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional references to third party sources. – Editør (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 70s era Miss Europe and national qualifier for Miss World get this one there for me. Agree with PageantUpdater on this one. Montanabw^(talk) 11:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider a redirect to Miss Europe § Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned (as Anke Groot). This would be a functional WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. European title holder, surely of some national celebrity as verified by the Dutch newspaper sources. That she's not heavily written up is no surprise--she's Dutch, and this is the 1970s, so the internet is only of limited help. Perhaps User:Trijnstel has some books on the shelf... Dr Aaij (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I don't. But personally I would keep this page... Trijnstel_talk 22:45, 15 February 2017 (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.