Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher

Ophélie Bretnacher

(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)[reply]

Delete per nom, BLP1E, NOTNEWS etc ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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'sPonyo^shhh 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E?? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing else to use and being dead doesn't mean an automatic article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - There is WP:BIO1E which I linked to in my delete comment above - it covers all biographies. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 02:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

307 000 articles on google... 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)[reply]

Delete per Ponyo and Martin. @Kate (parlez) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTMEMORIAL and NOTNEWS. Grsz¹¹ 06:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

307 000 articles on google... Photos: 67 700 ... etc. The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a state affair, pointing the problem of justice and police non cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. This is an issue of human rights and democracy in Europe

Comment- That's an argument for the creation of Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher, not the survival of THIS article. The proceedings would not be significantly different had the man killed some other french woman (though perhaps the coverage would be less pervasive if he'd killed someone less pretty). --King Öomie 13:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:GOOGLETEST. I'm less than surprised to see so many hits relating to the murder of a pretty french girl. --King Öomie 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained because Ophelie believed the construction of Europe. She was a person of great charisma, very sporty. She had traveled extensively in his studies and she had friends everywhere. As the campaign for the return came from across Europe and elsewhere: Germany, Russia, France, Hungary, Italy etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I want to explain something to you as gently as possible. I can't guarantee you won't be offended.

I'm sure she was a good person, and it's terrible that she was killed. But her personality is simply not relevant in this debate. There is no exception in WP:N for people who were 'charismatic'. Her death, in and of itself, is non-notable (which isn't to say that it isn't terrible). The governmental response to the ensuing investigation may be notable- but this DOES NOT allow for the creation of an article about the girl herself, especially if you intend to include a description of her personality, or her political opinions. This article, and indeed the subject itself, is unfit for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. And you seem to be the only person here who disagrees. --King Öomie 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now I agree with King. Let things play out it may end up being owrthy of inclusion after the politics play out. That time is not yet though.....Wiki will still be here when it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I take it well... It was not an argument, it was only to explain so much reactions in Europe:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, there are lots of white females who die under mysterious circumstances every year, and WP can not have an article on every one of them. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case Bretnacher Ophelie is a state affair, pointing the problem of justice and police non cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. This is an issue of human rights and democracy in Europe 307 000 articles on google... Photos: 67 700 ... etc.Raymondnivet (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't about that. It's about her murder. It only mentions the political issue in passing. It spends more time discussing the efforts to find her. --King Öomie 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And her murder is non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: It's a non-notable death. According to the article sources it's being treated as a drowning, but murder has not been ruled out. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a good idea :

That's an argument for the creation of Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher, not the survival of THIS article. The proceedings would not be significantly different had the man killed some other french woman (though perhaps the coverage would be less pervasive if he'd killed someone less pretty). —Preceding And you are reposting Kings comment why? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for the creation of Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher, not the survival of THIS article.../...--King Öomie 13:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody didn't say ONLY DELATE. Raymondnivet (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a GOOD argument. I only meant to point out that arguing the relevance and importance of the political backlash of her murder didn't help your case in defending an article about her. --King Öomie 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I understand ... but I just wanted to say it was an important point of view of socio-political science. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia? Political science does not interest it? I would not say it was my opinion. it is just a scientific interest ... and encyclopedic ... --Raymondnivet (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move - to Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher (currently a redirect to this article), per Hell and King. The aftermath of the crime is notable, but the victim herself is not. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how proper it would be to have an article titled Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher when the article has two sources stating " Forensic experts reported that there was no sign of aggression or criminal acts on her body, and concluded that death was probably the result of a suicide or accident" --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, the nature of the crime is itself a source of controversy in this issue, so at this time, 'Murder' isn't an appropriate title. I was making a point when I mentioned it, not a genuine suggestion. They say that no signs of aggression were found, but the article history mentions a large bruise. I have to wonder which one is incorrect. --King Öomie 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And tittle : Disappearance of Ophélie Bretnacher ? it would be good ? Raymondnivet (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) And for the murder: there is a big hematoma It is actually an homicide. Raymondnivet (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're killing me here. I am unconvinced that the article as it stands is acceptable under ANY title (and the original version isn't better). As to your assertion, she could easily have suffered an impact while falling into the river/jumping/any number of other theories. It's not as conclusive as you make it sound. Your keen interest leads me to believe that you're interested less in the political aspect and more on justice being served. --King Öomie 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this viewpoint as stated above. One day this may meet the standards of inclusion at this point that time is not here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning regardless of all the arguments that I gave, you absolutely refuse any inclusion whatsoever for the notability, the encyclopedic value, or the socio-political value. I am certain of is that you refuse all arguments, all even better justified. Regarding the argument of justice, no, it is not mine, so that justice is done, it must go to court. I'm not here for justice ... I'm here for the encyclopedic value ... And I return to my first question: censorship ? I have noticed this as the 4 times I mentioned Eva Rhodes H.I.B. withdrew my sentence in less than a minute! You have instructions on Eva Rhodes? You're afraid that this parasite does John Lennon? Worry, I just want to contribute to the desappearance of Ophelie Bretnacher and its consequences on European democracy, and neither Eva Rhodes, John Lennon does not interest me and I am ready to forget them. Chloemassart (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smelling like a lockerroom. Be it meat or sock can't tell yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't Know what you mean, but I understand maybe it's an insult for my wife : Chloé. my wife think that it's censorship. I, Raymond desagree with her. But now, maybe she's right. Insults are autorised on wikipedia ? you are an administrator Hell in a Bucket ? you are autorised to insult users' wifes ? I am waiting for your excuses a soon as possible --Raymondnivet (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here on wikipedia what you are doing right now is called either Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry. See WP:SOCK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HiaB, keep in mind that metaphors are typically lost in translation (not to insult, Chloe and Raymond, your english is actually quite good)- I assume you meant "Smells like a locker room" to imply sockpuppetry, rather than to actually insult the user as a person. Though perhaps stick to "Looks like someone opened the sock drawer" in the future :P. Raymond, your anger is reasonable given the circumstances here; I truly believe this is a misunderstanding. --King Öomie 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Since 3 days, I made the effort to explain in your language, how it seemed to me that the case of non-compliance of cooperation between 2 member states of Europe, from a student traveler, who will probably drag on for years before coming to your television or your newspaper, when she made headlines a year now of our newspapers in Europe and on the Internet. I thought there was not such a gap between 2 continents, at the internet age. I was sadly disappointed. Your ways and also your comments are not the same as ours. We also, we the people of the old continent's capacity for empathy, I have not always felt (with some exceptions) when you talk of disappearances which seem natural to you. But here I digress from the Encyclopedia ... My wife asked me to stop writing to you and I'll listen. I can add nothing more. I hope you have not tried to insult her. I do not understand your business "meat" and "socks", and I confess that I've had enough. The day you want, you will make yourself this product with your own research. This effort on my part was too time consuming and I have other more important responsibilities. I also hope you do not try to censor us. I'm not sure. I also think you have black listed Eva Rhodes (John Lennon's friend). The connection between Ophélie and Eva was made by the journalists of the Guardian, not me. My wife and me , don't know anybody of this story ,but we think that it had it's place on wikipedia It's a case of democracy.

I salute you. Raymondnivet (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely lost in translarion. I never meant to call your wife any names only refer to a policy we have here. Sorry for the confusion. Wiki isn't a democracy though./...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HiaB was referring specifically to [1]. On FR, that's an essay- but on EN, it's a policy. --King Öomie 21:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain us why do you have in Wikipedia a so long article on Alicia Ross and on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and why you don't accept Ophélie Bretnacher ? --Raymondnivet (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick review of the article, they had much more media coverage and seem to have more impact on their collective communities. One day your article might get there, that time is not now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article as The Ophélie Bretnacher case ,

now you have seen it's not a biography,not news, ans it's very important for people of France and Hungary ?

Raymondnivet (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your arguments as to why you think the article should be kept and others have argued otherwise. You are not improving your case by repeating your comments ad nauseam - the admin who reviews the dicussion will read all the comments and make a decision when the 7 day discussion period has passed. – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]