Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Raymondnivet (talk | contribs) |
Raymondnivet (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:*'''Comment'''- I'd also like to point out that accusations of censorship tend to ring exceptionally hollow with editors here, and in no way help your case. This article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. These criteria MAKE us an encyclopedia- if it's not notable, it's not covered. --[[User talk:Kingoomieiii|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">King Öomie</span>]] 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment'''- I'd also like to point out that accusations of censorship tend to ring exceptionally hollow with editors here, and in no way help your case. This article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. These criteria MAKE us an encyclopedia- if it's not notable, it's not covered. --[[User talk:Kingoomieiii|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">King Öomie</span>]] 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
I do not agree with the deletion. |
I do not agree with the deletion. |
||
The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a state affair [[User:Raymondnivet|Raymondnivet]] ([[User talk:Raymondnivet|talk]]) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC) |
The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a state affair Ophelia Bretnacher Google: 307 000 Articles Ophelia Bretnacher Photos: 67 700 ... etc.[[User:Raymondnivet|Raymondnivet]] ([[User talk:Raymondnivet|talk]]) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:10, 10 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)
- Delete, although a person can be here for one event ( Jon Benet Ramsey, imho no where even close on this article. } this seems to be more of a memorial page then anything else. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with the deletion.Ophelia Bretnacher Google: 307 000 Articles Ophelia Bretnacher Photos: 67 700 ... etc.
- Actually, I just removed it. The section headers were screwing things up on the log page. Besides, as you just said, it's visible in the page history.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)- I left a warning about the "ownership" issues seen above. I also tried explaining that the article neded to be cleaned up. It was all over the place and wasn't not NPOV. Kinda confusing how the model was connected other then she went missing too....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've collapsed the rest of the statement by this user. It is extremely long, and not properly formatted. --King Öomie 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I left a warning about the "ownership" issues seen above. I also tried explaining that the article neded to be cleaned up. It was all over the place and wasn't not NPOV. Kinda confusing how the model was connected other then she went missing too....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I just removed it. The section headers were screwing things up on the log page. Besides, as you just said, it's visible in the page history.
- Also, Delete, NOTMEMORIAL. It also isn't the PR arm of the French government. It doesn't matter how noble your cause is. You don't get a free pass from WP:N. --King Öomie 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment- I'd also like to point out that accusations of censorship tend to ring exceptionally hollow with editors here, and in no way help your case. This article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. These criteria MAKE us an encyclopedia- if it's not notable, it's not covered. --King Öomie 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with the deletion. The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a state affair Ophelia Bretnacher Google: 307 000 Articles Ophelia Bretnacher Photos: 67 700 ... etc.Raymondnivet (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)