Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance

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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's been a fair amount of process here. A previous article titled with the name of the biographical subject was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. This article was created later, and deleted as WP:CSD#G4, recreation of deleted content. That deletion was reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6, where the consensus was to list at a new AfD. The principal questions here are whether the article violates the one event clause, the not news clause, and the not a memorial clause. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL - also fails WP:1E and WP:BLP1E 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take time to reed this article and the references, it is completely new, with a new text, and new references improved by the french WP . It's a translation of the new french text, which has been improved for you with a few references in english to help you to undestand.

It's not not WP:1E|the one event clause, it's a diplomatic, historic and criminal case which has consequences on the European Union. It has been an intervention of the French President and on the National Assembly. For the same reasons it's not WP:NOTMEMORIAL and not WP:BIO1E, it doen's speak of the student wich is finally not important here but only of her disappeaarance in an other country of the EU, the local investigation and the diplomatic consequences, violating the Treaty of Lisbon)

It's not WP:BLP1E because everything concerns the death of Ophélie bretnacher( nothing about Ophélie alive) only the explanations of the circumstances of the drama.

It's not WP:NOTNEWS|not news clause because it's an encyclopedic case which lasts for over a year since mobilizarion for the truth has set for the 2nd consecutive year, as the case of the disappearance of Eva Rhodes, which lasted over 7 years. Indeed for Eva Rhodes, Hungary has been convicted for the beating and that of a woman by police at the European Court of Justice and his daughter believe that her disappearance and murder in 2008 in its consequences.

The 2 families (English and French) Bretnacher Ophelie and Eva Rhodes have joined forces to send a joint claim with the European Union.

Keep for all the raisons for all the reasons outlined above --Raymondnivet (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is a tragic case but unfortunately it is not uncommon that a person disappears and is found dead in unclear circumstances. It was convincingly rejected at the first AfD; retitling means that WP:BIO1E no longer applies, but rewording and adding more references have not overcome the other objections. I am not convinced by the attempt to give it political significance.

It was claimed at the DRV that this should be included because of the sheer number of sources cited - that under the WP:GNG a sufficient number of reliable sources is alone enough to make anything acceptable, over-riding other considerations. This claim is not supported by policy: the actual wording of the GNG is:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. (my emphasis)

but it goes on to say:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. (my emphasis, again)

and that is the situation here. JohnCD (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think JohnCD said is right on this point: This page should not be kept by the large number of his references.

But I think he should read and watch (films) carefully all sources especially in French and secondary sources to see not the number but the quality of the references and recognize how this case has international consequences.--Raymondnivet (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's clearly not a WP:BLP1E for the simple reason that it is not a biography, it is a summary of a case, and a pretty interestingly ramified one. BLP1E policy says: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. -But this is the event article already, so problem solved. WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here -the case is cleary notable for several good news sources and it is not WP:NOTNEWS given the long time range of the coverage. I see no other WP:NOT concerns here (to answer JohnCD above). Also, the fact that "it is not uncommon that a person disappears and is found dead in unclear circumstances" is completely irrelevant: we do not judge if something is unusual or not, we judge if it is verifiable, notable and appropriate for the encyclopedia. This article seems to satisfy all these requirements without problems. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Its not the greatest article I've ever seen, but it seems to move past WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS by demonstrating that it's become a fairly wide reaching story, involving potential diplomacy issues between two countries. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep,, this has passed deletion review on the French Pedia. Since the original inception Raymond has worked tirelessly to get it included here, Maybe the notability would be that much more if we understood French but there is enough sources showing this is a notable death that has effected EU politics. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd never heard of this case before, but was approached because I read French. The article needs better English wording, but the foundations are adequate. I checked out the sources, which include respectable French newspapers, and they back up what is said above, re international ramifications. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have improved a lot since its original conception, article seems to have an informative value for a reader, also agree with the comments from Cyclopia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion rationale includes WP:NOTMEMORIAL but it's totally unlike the usual memorial articles: it's details of the investigation and political significance rather than a description of her life sourced by the usual news articles that tend to appear after tragic deaths. As for WP:NOTNEWS, it covers not a single news story but an investigation that raises diplomatic questions, sparked intervention at the highest levels of government and is even used by politicians in a third country (UK) to criticize each other for not pursuing a separate case in the same way the French did. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because it's not a bio, which I suspect is what the original (deleted) article was. Holly25 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received significant coverage in press. Keep in mind that just because you don't read European newspapers, it doesn't mean that the events covered by them aren't notable. (As a European, I wouldn't know about Elizabeth Smart or Laci Peterson, if it wasn't for Wikipedia.) – Alensha ^talk 21:06, 21 January 2010 (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.