Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joost vandebrug

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joost vandebrug

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

Article contains only references to web pages that are mentioned in the article, not to published reliable sources. Lack of other evidence of notability suggests non-notability & failure to meet WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 18:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er what's that you're saying? I don't understand the nomination. This reference, for example, seems pretty good. The article links to it, but doesn't mention it. (Even if the article did mention it, so what?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be plenty of coverage about this person and his work/projects in a number of reliable third-party sources. I too don't quite understand the nom. Article needs moving to Joost Vandebrug per capitalisation. Mabalu (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -Subject meets GNG and CREATIVE #3 criteria (the person has created a well known work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews) -Sources, -[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I guess, nominator in their first sentence of afd rationale wanted to point out quite a few unnecessary web links that lead to no where but home page and in turn doesn't help to verify anything or establish notability. In second and last sentence of their rationale, they have raised a concern over notability that I think, should have been addressed by now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps KDS4444 would return here to gloss the nomination, and thereby end the guesswork. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2015 (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.