Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Douwe Dekker
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 delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marcel Douwe Dekker[edit]
- Marcel Douwe Dekker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page has been created by Marcel Douwe Dekker himself, who is also a Wikipedia user (Mdd): User:Mdd/Marcel Douwe Dekker, and was copied to the main name space by a colleague WP user from the Netherlands. A similar page was placed on Wikipedia Netherlands before (twice) and has been deleted for reasons of lack of notability: [1]
A similar page was placed on Wikiquote Netherlands before and was deleted there for the same reasons, and because Mdd refused to let others edit "his" page. It was recently restored at his request as he says he needs access to the edit history to "build a case". It is still marked "AfD": [2] W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What should be considered here, is if Marcel Douwe Dekker is 'notable' enough, I think we all agree on that. Judging from the references mentioned in the article, and the expositions held, I am inclined to say he is indeed notable enough. It is true that Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote the Dutch Wikipedia article himself, but it is also true that a small group of people monitor his every step to the point of harassing him. I'm not saying that Whaledad is one of them, but it seems clear to me that he made it his mission -across wiki- to erase all traces of Marcel Douwe Dekker. I find this very disturbing. Considerations other than encyclopedic relevance should not be taken into account, as we all (should) know. So, judge wisely, without prejudice and without bias, and if a majority of users finds it fails the notability guidelines, so be it. My vote is to keep it. Beachcomber (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From 1994 on he has been developing his own philosophy and theory about Civilization and Science! Three cheers for Marcel Douwe Dekker! His own philosophy about Civilazation and Science! I might suggest adding more capitals to this remarkable fact: From 1994 on He has been developing His Own Philosophy and Theory about Civilization and Science. Let's not be modest, Mdd! Humanity will be ever so greatful to you! RJB-nl (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self promotion by author Marcel Douwe Dekker. Saschaporsche (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From 1994 on he has been developing his own philosophy and theory about Civilization and Science! Three cheers for Marcel Douwe Dekker! His own philosophy about Civilazation and Science! I might suggest adding more capitals to this remarkable fact: From 1994 on He has been developing His Own Philosophy and Theory about Civilization and Science. Let's not be modest, Mdd! Humanity will be ever so greatful to you! RJB-nl (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it is probably a typo, but Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote the Dutch Wikipedia himself... is exactly the kind of presumptuousness that leads to an article like this. Click the "find sources" links below the header of this section, and you will only find links to pages that Mdd filled himself. Four of the five references that support this article (Judging from the references mentioned in the article) are to his own home page, the fifth is his LinkedIn page, where you can see that his current "job" is Wikipedia editor, and where he has a recommendation from Hubert Hermans who thanks him for contributing in an excellent way, to the presentation of my work on the Dutch and English Wikipedia. Where his actual contributions to these articles are extremely minimal: NL: [3], [4], and [5]; EN: [6]. Misinterpretation or misrepresentation? You be the judge.
- I fully agree with Mr. Beachcomber: the only thing that really matters here is notability. This should follow from relevant mentions of the person and his work in notable external sources. All that I've been able to find are mentions in his own sources.
- By the way: I resent any suggestion from Mr. Beachcomber that I would be monitoring every step that Mdd makes. Note that even if I did, I would not have found out about the creation of this page, as it was not created by himself, but on his behalf. I just happened to stumble upon this page as I follow new page creation and significant changes in the "Dutch xyz" categories (I'm a former Dutchman). W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right about that: there never was a Wikipedia article about Marcel Douwe Dekker, just a redirect to his user page. I missed something there - the mentioning of a 'redirect' So, he never created an article about himself, and his notability was never questioned. This is a good thing, because now we can look at the newly created English page with a fresh eye. I could not help noticing however that up to now only Dutch Wikipedia users are giving their opinion, so I'm still waiting for the fresh eye approach. Beachcomber (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Beachcomber, how on earth could you expect a fresh eye approach on a subject that is a total nobody in Dutch design. There is no reason what so ever why Dutch mediocracy should be featured on en-Wiki, were it is - quite rightleously - not even featured at nl-Wiki. If winter comes can spring be far behind. RJB-nl (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's just wait and see what others decide, RJB. By the way, I urge you to stop posting derogatory comments about other contributors here. This page is strictly intended for discussion on articles nominated for deletion. The Wiki ghost (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we want to wait what others decide, while we are alive and kicking ourselves? And why do you urge me to do something I already do? Where did I post derogatory comments about other contributors here? The only thing I did - and quite rightly so, I might add - is questioning the relevance of a Wikipedia lemma on a total nobody, who's - so we're supposed to think - spent the better part of his life developing his own philosophy and theory about Civilization and Science. I formerly believed that he spent his life sitting at least that part of the day that he was not photographing monkeys in the Rotterdam Zoo. I know - at least this is what he told us - that he also spent a lot of time discussing the pro's and con's of World Economy, with people who went on to become professors. Some of them even delivered key note speeches to the United Nations! It's a miracle, no less, that he even found time to develop his own philosophy about practilcy everything. But it is a miracle I tend not to believe. You - on the other hand - seem to do. Dream on, Wiki Gohst, and beware! RJB-nl (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's just wait and see what others decide, RJB. By the way, I urge you to stop posting derogatory comments about other contributors here. This page is strictly intended for discussion on articles nominated for deletion. The Wiki ghost (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Beachcomber, how on earth could you expect a fresh eye approach on a subject that is a total nobody in Dutch design. There is no reason what so ever why Dutch mediocracy should be featured on en-Wiki, were it is - quite rightleously - not even featured at nl-Wiki. If winter comes can spring be far behind. RJB-nl (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right about that: there never was a Wikipedia article about Marcel Douwe Dekker, just a redirect to his user page. I missed something there - the mentioning of a 'redirect' So, he never created an article about himself, and his notability was never questioned. This is a good thing, because now we can look at the newly created English page with a fresh eye. I could not help noticing however that up to now only Dutch Wikipedia users are giving their opinion, so I'm still waiting for the fresh eye approach. Beachcomber (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All the links on the article appear to be broken, which makes it very hard to see any evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were links to Mdd's personal website. I have edited the list at Marcel Douwe Dekker#Media coverage of his work. "Media" here includes a large number of exhibit catalogs and free local weekly news rags the likes. There is also coverage at "real" news media in the list, but note that that coverage always pertains to an entire exhibition that Mdd happened to be part of. He proudly lists where his spider or chicken lamp pictures were shown, and/or he was mentioned in 1 or 2 lines of text. I have actually found one of those articles in available archive, where it shows that the "award" that Mdd indicated was just an "honorable mention". In my mind none of this "coverage" makes Mdd notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Mdd's own page on Wikiquote Netherlands (q:nl:Marcel Douwe Dekker) has again been removed for lack of notability. ([7]) W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were links to Mdd's personal website. I have edited the list at Marcel Douwe Dekker#Media coverage of his work. "Media" here includes a large number of exhibit catalogs and free local weekly news rags the likes. There is also coverage at "real" news media in the list, but note that that coverage always pertains to an entire exhibition that Mdd happened to be part of. He proudly lists where his spider or chicken lamp pictures were shown, and/or he was mentioned in 1 or 2 lines of text. I have actually found one of those articles in available archive, where it shows that the "award" that Mdd indicated was just an "honorable mention". In my mind none of this "coverage" makes Mdd notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another sad autobio with strained cites to catalog mentions and so on. Why do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2012 (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.