Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa van Lieshout

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. Consensus is that she meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. So Why 08:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa van Lieshout

[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)

Not notable. She has never been elected to parliament in any of her attempts having only gained a maximum of approximately 1.64% of the vote in any electorates she has run in. Never been a officer holder of any major political party. Her attempts at authorship and not notable either. Almost all mentions of her in the media are to do with her outbursts or bizarre behaviour around election times and she is forgotten once elections are over. Current media attention is momentary and she will be once again forgotten once the court case passes. All in an all a very unnotable person whose existence is not encyclopedic. AlanS^talk 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, COVID-19, and Australia. AlanS^talk 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per my nomination. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. AlanS^talk 13:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: AlanS (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Keep, obviously. I don't know what part of GNG you think it fails, but as far as I can tell, it meets those requirements. --Pokelova (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- She lacks significant coverage. The coverage she has is almost exclusively confined to her outbursts during election campaigns. This is not significant coverage. AlanS^talk 13:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are operating under a different definition of significant than what the policy actually says. --Pokelova (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." A lot of sources that focus on one aspect, i.e., her outbursts at election times, do not address her in detail. Focusing on the same minor attention seeking behaviour over and over again does not address her as a biographical subject in detail. She lacks notability because there is no significant coverage of her. I think that is perhaps you that are operating under a different definition of significant than what Wiki policy says. AlanS^talk 13:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being primarily known for being a loon does not inherently make her unnotable. Your idea that "in detail" means every article about her needs to do a deep dive into her entire history is frankly ridiculous. --Pokelova (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage over her criminal history, seems to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the subject meets the guidelines for fringe subjects, and her actions clearly put her on the fringe, so those are the guidelines we should consider when evaluating the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, I'm unaware of the fringe subject guidelines. Could you please post a link? Schwede 66 01:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, there is the WP:FRINGEBLP guideline, e.g. There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. From my view, I think there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject in a serious and extensive manner, which has allowed this biography to be written in a neutral manner. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FRINGEBLP - excellent. Thanks for that. Schwede 66 01:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BASIC notability appears supported by independent and reliable sources over time, based on my initial review of the article and sources available online. This guideline includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which appears to apply here. The WP:FRINGE guideline says, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner, and this appears to be well-covered by the Legal issues section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am satisfied there's enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's decent and sustained coverage, including relating to her arrest for involvement in a bizarre alleged coup plot. Per WP:FRINGEBLP "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs." AusLondonder (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2022 (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.