Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Marie Hoogland

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne Marie Hoogland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Anne Marie Hoogland (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)

The article contains two citations; which are identical, and are broken. In effect, the article has been an unsourced BLP since its creation in 2005. The corresponding Dutch article, nl:Anne Marie Hoogland, contains much biographical detail, but only one linked citation (this), which appears to be her resume on the website of the political party to which she belongs, PvdA, and ends in 2005. (The maintenance template on that article, nl:Sjabloon:Wiu, is equivalent to our Template:Cleanup, but of course may not have the identical function.) A WP:BEFORE search turned up one, and only one, additional citation (other than social networking sites): an article in De Volkskrant (which is WP:RS) (link), which reports in passing that she came third in a PvdA leadership election in 2005. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources found online. Non-notable person. Angus1986 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I’ve considered nominating this myself a couple of times. Mccapra (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - As a local politician, doesn't pass WP:NPOL, not enough sources to pass [WP:GNG]]. Achaea (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Being chair of a city borough is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL; to be notable for that, she would have to show "significant press coverage", supporting a substantive article about her political significance, to get over NPOL #2. And running for, but not winning, the chairmanship of a political party is not a strong notability claim in the absence of a GNG-worthy volume of media coverage either, so there's no basis to claim that she has expanded notability for other reasons stronger than the city borough. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable local level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. We have to hold all party officials from all countries - India, United States, Canada, Ireland, or Netherlands - to the same standard of WP:POLOUTCOMES. Unless she's the national chair or treasurer, she's not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. She fails both the GNG and NPOL. PK650 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (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.