Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
***If there's nothing else to use (and I'm not agreeing with the specific claim), then you don't have an argument for deletion, because "living" is an essential element of the policy you're citing. I think you should review the range of potentially applicable policies and guidelines more carefully. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
***If there's nothing else to use (and I'm not agreeing with the specific claim), then you don't have an argument for deletion, because "living" is an essential element of the policy you're citing. I think you should review the range of potentially applicable policies and guidelines more carefully. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
****There is [[WP:BIO1E]] which I linked to in my delete comment above - it covers all biographies. --[[User:Ponyo|<b><font color="FFB521">Jezebel's</font></b><font color="3773A5">Ponyo</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ponyo|<font color="3773A5">''shhh''</font>]]</sup> 02:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
****There is [[WP:BIO1E]] which I linked to in my delete comment above - it covers all biographies. --[[User:Ponyo|<b><font color="FFB521">Jezebel's</font></b><font color="3773A5">Ponyo</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ponyo|<font color="3773A5">''shhh''</font>]]</sup> 02:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
****Even if there wasn't anything that covered it, which I just found out that there is, it wouldn't matter. That's a dumb response |
****Even if there wasn't anything that covered it, which I just found out that there is, it wouldn't matter. That's a dumb response because it's such a minor detail. [[User:Joe Chill|Joe Chill]] ([[User talk:Joe Chill|talk]]) 02:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:16, 9 December 2009
- Ophélie Bretnacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Single event only. Subject is not notable apart from her death, article is a more of a crime report than a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, BLP1E, NOTNEWS etc ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the subject is known for only one event, namely her disappearance. Although the death of a young person is sad, there is no viable reason to have a stand-alone wikipedia article on this individual. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Subject fails wikipedia notability guidelines. Thousands of people vanish, and turn up dead a year, and nothing seems to mark this one as special. Also WP:NOT#NEWS Martin451 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- BLP1E?? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing else to use and being dead doesn't mean an automatic article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- If there's nothing else to use (and I'm not agreeing with the specific claim), then you don't have an argument for deletion, because "living" is an essential element of the policy you're citing. I think you should review the range of potentially applicable policies and guidelines more carefully. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is WP:BIO1E which I linked to in my delete comment above - it covers all biographies. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 02:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Even if there wasn't anything that covered it, which I just found out that there is, it wouldn't matter. That's a dumb response because it's such a minor detail. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- If there's nothing else to use (and I'm not agreeing with the specific claim), then you don't have an argument for deletion, because "living" is an essential element of the policy you're citing. I think you should review the range of potentially applicable policies and guidelines more carefully. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing else to use and being dead doesn't mean an automatic article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)