Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joran van der Sloot

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 of the debate was keep, possibly merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joran van der Sloot

Violates WP:POV and assumes a untried man is guilty. Also, this article's significance is disputable, a merge may be in order if POV issues are cleared up. Eyaw Nayr 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly speedy. The subject's notability is well established. If there are pov issues, work on them. That is no ground for deletion. Assuming "an untried man is guilty" is no ground for deletion either. If the article gives such an impression, work on it. It doesn't even matter whether he's guilty or not. What matters is that he is the central figure of a notable case. That alone is enough ground for notability. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. --Yamla 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Natalee Holloway as this is the only reason he is notable. KimvdLinde 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Aecis. Accurizer 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – I could not find an assumption of guilt in the article. In any case, the proper place to raise POV issues is on the discussion page of the article, not here. Lambiam^Talk 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Aecis. Boneyard 22:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep well-known figure. In fact I'd hazard a guess that this guy is the best known Aruban there is. --Deville (Talk) 02:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: you made the point for deletion, he is not Aruban but a Dutch living at Aruba at the time. KimvdLinde 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

how exactly is that point for deletion? Boneyard 20:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is apparently so misleading that people think he is Aruban. He is Dutch, and has not reached any notability beyond being accused of a crime by the mother of Natalee Holloway and the subsequent vitual lynch posse that went down on him. The accusation itself is notable, he himself is not at all. The fact that there is a whole article on him is related to accusations by the mother (the judges have released him because there is no (not enough) evidence), not anything else. KimvdLinde 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect per KimvdLine Hornplease 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but remember that Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment at first he might have a part of the natalee article, but when the case developed and her parents started sueing him having an article is simply logical. Boneyard 20:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Exactly the best reason to merge it, as it all related to the Natalee Holloway disappearance case. The lawsuit is just one of the many actions of the parents. Not every lawsuit is notable, and this will probably be only notable because of the media attention it has generated although it is to eary to know if this lawsuit is not tossed out before it even starts. KimvdLinde 12:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Natalee Holloway. --MaNeMeBasat 10:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Natalee Holloway, most of the info here is non-notable, since we do not detail every lawsuit filed against anyone. Essentially a copy of the information from the Natalee Holloway article just with a different subject. Jdcooper 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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.