Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna van Aerssen van Sommelsdijk

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna van Aerssen van Sommelsdijk

[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)

Absolutely no presentation of any case for notability. WP:NOTGENEALOGY totally applies here - she was born in 1640, she was in a family, she was one of a number of sisters who joined a movement, she died. No notability in text or sources. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a six-paragraph scholarly biography in Dutch here which includes a reference list pointing to other sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC as demonstrated by Ficaia and the Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland. pburka (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka. St Anselm (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The six-paragraph biography adds absolutely nothing to the article in its current state and confers no notability whatsoever - she was not a proponent of any act or consequence. The Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland does not even mention her. FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland is the name of the biographical dictionary in which the six-paragraph biography appears. Wikipedia's notability criteria don't require great feats or acts of consequence. Instead, we delegate the determination of notability to reliable sources. If a prominent tertiary source such as DVN has taken note of van Aerssen, then so also should we. pburka (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO as above. Yet another unnecessary nomination. One is supposed to check sources before nominating! gidonb (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Nominators should be especially careful in nominating for deletion articles about women, when their contributions are regularly underrepresented in historical sources, a fact which the Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland already sought to remedy, so let's not disregard that important work. Jahaza (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The sources clearly include Dutch biographical disctionaries. It is long established that people with articles in such works are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is article could easily be expanded to 60k or 80k with not a lot of work. More than than a few sources to support it. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 11 October 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.