Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Consularis

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De Consularis (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)

No evidence this organization passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Prod has been declined, as was addition of notability tag, in exchange for adding some references this initially unreferenced article. I do appreciate help finding Dutch sources, as references in English for this NGO seem not to exist. Unfortunately, the quality of sources added do not seem very impressive, so I think we need a further discussion here. As far I am able to tell through Google Translate, the sources found so far are: 1) [1] this seems like a reprint/rewrite of a press release in a now-defunct regional paper/online portal. Due to reading like a press release, I have serious concerns whether this source is truly reliable and independent 2) [2] is a marketing trade journal, and per NORG/RS trade journals are often problematic sources (too often they are "pay us to advertise your company") types of coverage. The article is also not in-depth about the NGO, it seems to be about the general concept of 'commissioner', and mentions the NGO near the end for about a single sentence. 3) [3] I cannot judge the source itself, "BC" is too generic term for me to find out much about the platform, it may be a reliable large newspaper, or another niche trade journal, I have no opinion. But the coverage again is not in-depth. Ths time the NGO gets two paragraphs near the bottom, but it is just three sentences or so and then a large quote from the NGO's director. 4) Again, no comments on the source (deondernemer), I can't find out much about the outlet. The coverage is similar to the previous source, a paragraph or so near the bottom, significantly based on the quotation from the NG's director. So again, not in-depth and mostly WP:INTERVIEW. As such, I think that this NGO fails NORG, and this is just a WP:YELLOWPAGES like entry created for promotional reasons (stub creator User:Arcarius has been blocked as a sock...). But if you think better sources exist and you want to try to rescue this, go ahead, let's discuss this. But please, let's focus on the article, and avoid WP:NPAs. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. With the full disclosure that I am a unilingual American, the sources I find from a Google Search are only their website, their article, and a bunch of unrelated stuff. The nom provides me with further confidence that this does not pass NORG or the GNG. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cant find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2020 (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.