Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arie Trouw (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Trouw

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:NBIO. Current sources are not independent (interview/written by subject) or are unrelated (focused on his daughter, not the subject). Other sources found online are largely passing mentions, with no coverage meeting WP:NBASIC. Previously soft deleted at AfD. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, South Africa, and United States of America. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Congraph and Bloxter come up as sources, so this is more crypto-spam. I don't see this individual being covered in any RS and this reads as a fluffy resume. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after I removed the crypto sources, there's nothing there. Notability is not conferred from his daughter - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the crypto section? Are you just anti-crypto or is there a Wikipedia policy against crypto? I am sure if I remove the writing section from Stephen King, his article would be fairly strange also. Adding it back. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a slew of reasons:

nothing on this guy's page establishes that he is notable in any way
the article's creation (and recreation) is a blatant undisclosed COI edit. The article was recreated this year by the same user who originally created it in 2022 who is in turn the same user who created his daughter's article, and whose edits to Wikipedia have almost exclusively been to promote Arie and Elise.
surely relatedly, it reads as self-promotion and family promotion to an extent that is frankly laughable. "Arie Trouw is the father of Elise Trouw, a noted musician. This connection adds a unique aspect to his public persona." - really!? This would be embarrassing to write in your bio even in a context where self-promotion is accepted. How did the editor - whether it was Arie or someone connected to him - possibly think it was okay to put this in a Wikipedia article?
besides a couple of tangentially relevant sources about Elise's music career, the only source cited for the article is the Arie's own website.

Blow this article away, and let's bring the editor to the COI noticeboard too. Users have complained about their COI editing in the past on his Talk page, and he's never engaged with any of the complaints. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that there is a lot of crypto hate here as self importance of personal subjective opinions about notability. Can we stick to the facts rather than ranting like [ExplodingCabbage]? What makes a business person notable? Suing Facebook for anti-trust? Creating billions of dollars in revenue? Creating thousands of jobs? Dozens of companies? Patents? Technologies? Being regularly interviewed and quoted by industry press? Or does it come down to "I have not heard of a person, and I dislike their industry, so I want to exclude historical factual data from Wikipedia"? Pedestrian69 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: COI-spam that does not meet GNG. Melcous (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting data point, which I might suggest is something Wikipedia might consider using, is that if you ask ChatGPT, "Who is Arie Trouw?" for example, it responds with something that supports notoriety (actually uses 'prominent' and the adjective when I asked it). ChatGPT is actively governed to not be used to query people who are not in the public eye, for security reasons. Thus, I would argue that ChatGPT is a better 'notoriety' checker than either you or I. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity bio. May be notable, but this article does not demonstrate it and is clearly written by someone who is not approaching the subject in a neutral manner. Sources appear to be self published, opinion pieces, trivial mentions or discussions on other matters and companies. Critically, sources actually about the article subject appears to have been written by the article subject. (Even to the extent of interviewing themselves.) Notability is also not inherited from his daughter. Plus the fact the article complete skips having a lead to summarise notability is a good indication there is little to speak of.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources used about his daughter never mention him by name, and only establish that Elise Trouw has a father. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the WP:RS-qualifying refs to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2024 (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.