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. There is a clear consensus that this individual's work, to the extent it has been recognized by reliable sources, is insufficent to show notability at this time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Booth[edit]

Georgina Booth (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)

Has accomplished more than I have, certainly. Nevertheless, she does not appear to be notable for either her humanitarian work or her acting work, the references don't look particularly substantial or reliable, and I am having difficulty finding decent coverage of this person. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bongwarrior,
This is entirely your own opinion. Georgina Booth is very well-known in The Netherlands, Europe. I don't know where you are from, but you have a very subjective opinion if you are not from The Netherlands. I can not believe that you would delete a page about a young person who has done so many good things for other people. I myself have read a lot about this young person, and I am aware that she will be very prominent in the media in the near future as it is known that she will be participating in several projects which will gain a lot of media coverage in The Netherlands. I have thoroughly enjoyed writing an article about this spectacular young person and she is more of a philanthropist than an actress at the moment, so that is maybe the reason why you 'do not think her acting work is notable'. I find it very insulting that you do not think the sources are reliable as they are from official large organizations in The Netherlands. I do not know if you understand the language of The Netherlands? Where are you from exactly? IF you will delete this page, I will file a complaint about you and hopefully others will see more sense. Every other Wikipedia volunteer that has been updating the page about Georgina Booth have just corrected it to improve it, and you have only visited this page for the first time and want to immediately delete it. Who gives you the right to decide what should or should not delete it?
If the sources are an issue. A lot of other sources from The Netherlands can be added. I think it is highly unlikely that you know every single person on this planet, so if you think this person is not 'notable' enough, then that is entirely your subjective opinion. I find it very sad that you have only on this page once and spend a portion of time in your life searching about this person and then immediately want to delete it. I have seen a large quantity of Wikipedia articles which are very unreliable and are about people who have done much less work than this person in either philanthropy or acting and do not get insulting deletion messages from volunteers like you. Before deleting this page, if I were you, I would consider deleting a large amount of Wikipedia articles which contain a lot less than this article. --Wikinow1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, and I assure you it's nothing personal. I just think it may be too soon for an article about this person based on the quality of the sources presented so far. They don't need to be in English, but they do need to be reliable, independent, and non-trivial. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with you. The sources that are used in this article are from very large organizations in The Netherlands. 2 sources are from one of the largest philanthropic organization in The Netherlands (the ministry of peace of which national Dutch politicians are part of so they are 100 percent legitimate. The minister of peace Jan Terlouw is a very famous children's author and former deputy prime minister of The Netherlands). The other sources are from one of the largest municipalities in The Netherlands of which Georgina has been actively involved in as a humanitarian ambassador. A lot of media in The Netherlands have written about this and she is very well-known there. A lot of articles on Wikipedia contain similar amount of sources as the sources in this particular article.
I find it very strange that you have only visited this article for the first time and immediately want to delete it. I find you, therefore, highly unreasonable, as all other volunteers/editors have only improved/edited the article or deleted particular sentences to improve article. The message about deletion must be taken away and if you have an 'issue' with sources, then more sources can be added over the weeks. Instead of wasting so much time about deleting a page of a young person who wants to do good things for others, we can just solve this issue now and get on with our lives. I do not want an argument, but this is really a waste of time to argue about a young girl who does humanitarian work in a small country in Europe (Netherlands). --Wikinow1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
By the way, it must be emphasized that the deletion message must be removed, because it gives negativity to all of the good work and efforts this person has done for the good of others. A person like her does not deserve that. It is a very nasty act to delete an article about a young person who actually wants to do good. All of the other editors have only helped in a positive way. You could do the same by helping like all of the other editors/volunteers, instead of just being so negative and wanting to remove it. Please remove it. --Wikinow1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Dear other Wikipedia editors and volunteers reading this, would you please help me to delete the deletion message added by Bongwarrior. I do not have the time to argue about a young girl who is notable in a small country for her humanitarian work. I have put a lot of effort and thoroughly enjoyed writing an article about a good young person. Bongwarrior should not have put this deletion message on the article about Georgina Booth with the reasons he/she has given. The deletion message must be removed from the article, because it gives negativity to all of the good work and efforts this person has done for the good of others. A person like her does not deserve that. I praise any young person who does good for others and this person deserves an article to be written about her and she is also very notable for her good work in The Netherlands. --Wikinow1 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Wikinow1 — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If nobody will delete the deletion message added by Bongwarrior about the article of Georgina Booth, then I will delete that message myself as I have just as much right as others to edit this article. It can be discussed on here if some want to add it back and continue with arguing about a young girl who does a lot of humanitarian work.--Wikinow1 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1 — Wikinow1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would strongly advise against removing the deletion message on the article. If you look at the deletion message, you will see that it says, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." You are not the person who gets to decide when the discussion is closed. (That will be most likely be done by an administrator about a week from now, after a full discussion of the article.) Also, please keep in mind that deletion discussions such as this one are not intended to be judgments of whether the subject is a good person, nor are they meant to be insults to the subject. There are typically more than a hundred deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion started every day and they are just meant to be a part of maintaining the encyclopedia. The best thing you can do for this article now would be to add the "lot of other sources from The Netherlands" that you mentioned above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 01:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90, as she is well-known in a small country and her work mainly consists of philanthropy at such a young age, a lot of sources about her are not on the internet but were in newspapers, magazines and other written sources. I don't know exactly what you want me to do, but all of those sources are not available on the internet. It is also known that she is going to participate in some very large projects this year, so there will probably be more internet sources over the next few weeks. I will find it very petty if anyone wants to delete this page soon. We are all volunteers and it especially does not make volunteers from other countries 'experts' on a subject from a country they are not from based on reading one article. But, since you insist on 'more' sources, I have just added other sources which are all legitimate. How many 'sources' do I need to add, before all of you will take that 'deletion message' away? I would suggest all of you to scrutinize some other articles that contain much less sources about people who are less well-known, and who have no 'deletion messages' appearing on their articles. Just look on the list of people born in 1994 - a large amount of articles contain much less information than this article (about people who have hardly done anything) and which contain much less sources! I have tried to add some extra sources, and they are governmental pdf files about Georgina Booth (so they are legitimate), but Wikipedia will not allow me to do that. You can hardly expect me to retrieve all articles in newspapers and magazines that this person has been featured in! Instead of wasting time, can this 'issue' be solved now? What 'needs' to be done to take the deletion message away? If this Encyclopedia 'needs' to be 'maintained', then you should scrutinize those thousands of other articles, which do not have any deletion messages, and contain much less information (also hardly any sources). --Wikinow1 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

Regarding non-Internet sources, those are allowed to be cited. The way you can cite them is to use the "cite news" template (similar to the "cite web" template which I see you have already been using) and leave the URL blank. Or, alternatively, just type out the author, title, newspaper name, date, and page surrounded by <ref> ... </ref> -- so that if we went to a Dutch library, we could find them somehow. The deletion template is very likely going to be up on this article until August 24, so you may as well get used to it being there. And if you want to submit any other inadequately sourced articles for deletion, please go ahead and do so if those other articles deserve to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't anyone say any of this earlier? A lot of people have already edited it, and only because 'Bangwarrior' suddenly put the deletion message on, it 'might have to be deleted'. How subjective! It is a personal opinion. There are a lot of reliable sources about this person. I am also assuming none of you live in The Netherlands... That is probably the reason why none of you are 'finding sources' about this person. Do all of you really want to spend so much time scrutinizing this article? There is nothing wrong with this article and the sources are reliable and independent. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with large Dutch (governmental) organizations. Why are all of you so fixated on the internet? What about the actual hard copy sources, e.g. newspapers and magazines? Instead of scrutinizing this article about this young girl in particular who has done a lot of good things and has a lot of reliable sources to back her up, try looking and deleting some other articles of others who were born in 1994 and have really unreliable and non-independent sources (e.g. this person born in 1994: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Boscarino). Is a Twitter source of that person reliable? You should start checking these other articles instead... If you think a Twitter account on the 'article of Samantha Boscarino' is more reliable than reliable governmental and NGO sources of 'the article of Georgina Booth', then I must say that none of you know the rules of Wikipedia well. Is social media e.g. Twitter a reliable source and are articles from large Dutch (governmental) institutions not reliable? --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

By the way in response to 'Sudoghost' (Article fails WP:GNG; it would need some reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant an article, and this article doesn't have that right now, looking online doesn't show anything either.): I have just added another reliable source to this article that is independent from the topic (an article from a business club part of the Dutch government). How can you say that it is not reliable and independent? This article has more reliable sources than a lot of articles in the list of 'People born in 1994'. --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

If all of you want to delete this, then you should delete most articles in the list of people in 1994. This person has done more than them and has more sources too. --Wikinow1 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, either way. Also please note that being in the news with lots of sources for "doing good things" does not equal notability. Also please stop assuming bad faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why scrutinize this article, when a lot of other articles are allowed to exist that don't obey the rules of Wikipedia? And this person is notable in The Netherlands. Are any of you from The Netherlands? It is an invalid reason to assume this person is not notable, just because you can't find enough about her in other countries. It is like saying that you should delete every article about small places in the world that most people in the world have never heard of. Not every biography on Wikipedia is about people who are notable in every single part of the world. A lot of people are just notable in 1 or a few countries. Just a question: is Twitter allowed as a source? --Wikinow1 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)--Wikinow1[reply]

If the subject is very notable in the Netherlands, I would expect to find an article about her in the Dutch Wikipedia. But as of now, there isn't one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Twitter is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few mentions of the subject floating around the internet, and I'm sure there are similar references to her in print sources that I can't dig up at the moment, but nothing to show notability. She'll probably get there someday, but right now any mention of her that I can find (even being fluent in Dutch) is either not significant coverage, or it is not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG MisterUnit (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete - if Twitter is not a reliable source, then a deletion message should also appear on articles like 'the article of Samantha Boscarino' and on many other Wikipedia articles. Why is there no deletion message appearing on them, but all of you seem to be ganging up together on this article? How can I assume 'bad faith' according to some of you when everything I am saying is true? I would strongly recommend all of you to leave this page alone, or for a few months as it is known in the area where she is from that she is going to be more high profile (a lot of sources about her are hard copy). All of you just seem to be 'stalking' her and scrutinizing her obsessively on the internet when you could be scrutinizing others who do NOT meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Kind of sad scrutinizing an article about a young girl who has done a lot and is notable. By the way, 'MisterUnit', can you prove that you can speak Dutch fluently (and not using google translation)? I might just file a complaint about all of you who obsessively spending your time on scrutinizing an article that does overall meet the criteria of Wikipedia, when a lot of articles which do NOT are left unchecked. And if you, MisterUnit, are fluent in Dutch, how come you find the sources 'not independent of the subject'? If you were fluent in Dutch, you would read that they are independent governmental or NGO institutions in The Netherlands with leading Dutch politicians as head of them. Kind of sounds like all of you are jealous of this young person (due to the fact that she might have achieved more at a younger age than a lot of you without being on the internet 24/7) and that is why none of you want an article written about her... As 'Bongwarrior' already subjectively said when he placed the deletion message on the article 'Has accomplished more than I have, certainly' or as 'MisterUnit' said 'She'll probably get there someday'. By saying a personal opinion first rather than objectively observing this article, it shows that there are personal reasons why some of you believe that this article should be deleted... Maybe some of you have kids and are comparing her to them or maybe you are comparing her to yourselves? And I am not the first person on the internet to be saying this about some of the volunteers on this page who are criticizing this article... I do not want an argument, but I am only saying the facts. Also, I would like to emphasize that all of you are judging this person's article based on her acting career. It has to be emphasized that she is known more as a philanthropist than an actress. It was just put in her biography that she was an actress in the past and is now more primarily a philanthropist. And by the way, there IS an article on the Dutch wikipedia. --Wikinow1 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to promotional content, lack of notability, no reliable sources and not generally known at all in The Netherlands (contrary to what is stated above) the similar article which just has been placed on nl-wiki has been also nominated for deletion as well there. MoiraMoira (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC) editor/admin on nl-wiki; editor on en-wiki and living in The Netherlands[reply]
Comment You should really try to stay on topic here. If you think Samantha Boscarino should be nominated for deletion, then nominate the article for deletion. Nobody is saying that the rest of English Wikipedia is perfect by nominating this article for deletion or by !voting delete. You may notice that 101 articles were nominated for deletion the same day that this article was. There are hundreds of articles and files nominated for deletion every day, many of which ultimately end up getting deleted.
If you would like me to prove that I am fluent in Dutch I live in the Vancouver area and am available for lunch today. Let me know if you would like to meet up.
A word of advice - You might want to stop writing these long responses to everybody who !votes on this AFD. You're making a lot of assumptions about the other editors involved in this discussion (such as "all of you are judging this person's article based on her acting career"), and some of what you are saying, especially about people's children and personal lives, could be interpreted as personal attacks. MisterUnit (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now taken everything of the articles of 'Georgina Booth', so there is no point arguing anymore. Please just leave this topic alone now. Apparently nobody wants to give a new volunteer the chance to change the first article that I have ever written on this website and put a lot of effort into writing it. I think it is such a waste of time to argue whether a young teenage girl who is known to do a lot of good work for others does or does not deserve to be on this encyclopedia. Do not bother reversing what I have done just so you can delete it yourself.--Wikinow1 (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit on the Georgina Booth page. Per WP:EDITATAFD please don't blank the page. I think you've had your say here and everybody understands your position. At this point it is probably best to just stop interfering and let the AfD run its course. MisterUnit (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (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.
More