Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Mudde
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 keep. joe deckertalk to me 05:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Mudde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Only indepent reliable source in the article is supposedly a mention of him being arrested in a news paper (trouw) (the link is dead, so I can't check it). More sources would be required to establish notability, but I can't find them. Yoenit (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC) The link to the volkskrant article provides sufficient coverage to meet the notability guideline, so I am withdrawing the nomination. Yoenit (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of courses archives of newspapers being placed behind a paywall or being purged altogether can't be grounds for deletion. The article is still available offline. Added active link from NRC Handelsblad mentioning Mudde. SpeakFree (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ofcourse it is still a valid source, but I can't check it now for depth of coverage. The NRC article is a nice find and mentions him in the following sentence (translation is mine): "Important members of Voorpost Nederland are Marcel Rüter and Time Mudde, previously the 'smarter' cadre of CP'89". Between that and a mention of him being arrested I still don't think enough coverage exists for a proper article. Yoenit (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still then there is no ground for deletion of the entire article since there are reliable sources showing notability and the article doesn't fail WP:DEL#REASON. SpeakFree (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are not enough to establish notability, but lets get some outside opinions on that shall we? Yoenit (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still then there is no ground for deletion of the entire article since there are reliable sources showing notability and the article doesn't fail WP:DEL#REASON. SpeakFree (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ofcourse it is still a valid source, but I can't check it now for depth of coverage. The NRC article is a nice find and mentions him in the following sentence (translation is mine): "Important members of Voorpost Nederland are Marcel Rüter and Time Mudde, previously the 'smarter' cadre of CP'89". Between that and a mention of him being arrested I still don't think enough coverage exists for a proper article. Yoenit (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant and in-depth coverage in multiple Dutch national newspapers, periodicals, and other media. --Lambiam 23:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind giving some examples? Such sources could be used to improve the article, but I have been unable to find them. Yoenit (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For about a decade CP '86 was a "notable" (in the broadest sense of the word) part of the development of the Dutch extreme right with its emphasis on racism and nationalism and inclination towards Neo-Nazism, until its views were found to be criminal by the Dutch courts.[1] The Volkskrant article which is the first reference in the article highlights Tim Mudde's role within the party (though Google Translate renders him as Treasurer rather than Party Secretary - the two titles may refer to the same function)[2]. Knowledge is important, even when its subject is miasmatous. But someone should be keeping an eye on the development of the article. Opbeith (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't know how authoritative a source [3] is as a reference for the article itself but certainly it's worth considering as background information for this discussion. By its name Antifascistische Onderzoeksgroep Kafka makes its political position quite clear but its analysis is sober and appears solidly researched. It identifies Tim Mudde as a significant influence in Dutch neo-Nazi circles.(Google Translate: [4] ). (follow-up references at [5]) Opbeith (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a bit more about Mudde's activities with Brigade M at [6]. Overall there's a fair amount of solid backing to reinforce the reliable source of De Volkskrant as to Mudde's notability, setting aside issues of savouriness. Opbeith (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing the sources. The volkskrant article clearly establishes notability, so I am withdrawing the nomination. Yoenit (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Translate is pretty handy for this sort of thing, but apparently Google have said that they plan to withdraw it within the next year because it's been abused. Opbeith (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing the sources. The volkskrant article clearly establishes notability, so I am withdrawing the nomination. Yoenit (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a bit more about Mudde's activities with Brigade M at [6]. Overall there's a fair amount of solid backing to reinforce the reliable source of De Volkskrant as to Mudde's notability, setting aside issues of savouriness. Opbeith (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2011 (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.