Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn (2)

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 Delete. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monica de Bruyn

It happens all the time. A person who is non-notable by Wikipedian standards creates a website or webpage. To create some traffic, (s)he creates an article here. The vanity page consists of ravings, exaggerations and unverifiable facts. Basic demographics are not included. Next we, Wikipedia editors, start looking for leads about this person, demographics etcetera, for verification, NPOVing and notability. The page becomes a knowledge-base on the person. However, the person does not like his birth-names, birth-date, a linked page with information about the dip in his career and/or other biographic facts and (s)he starts trolling through vandalism, edit wars, sockpoppeting, dumping ridiculous threats of legal action etcetera. In the case of Monica de Bruyn I always had the feeling that notability was stretched somewhat to prove the point that the person cannot remove the page and we decide on the content. While this is true, I have always claimed that this is a wrong course of action. A biography of a non-notable person should be deleted regardless of her/his behavior. We know very little about this person, we have not verified much of the information in the article and she has accomplished very little *we know of* that would make her notable *enough for a Wikipedia article*. I suggest deleting the article for non-notability. gidonb 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC) *clarifications* added gidonb 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn (previous nomination, over a year ago, result was keep)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrozinski

• Delete per nom. gidonb 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In all the time that has elapsed since the original nomination, notability has not been established. I suggest that this is because the subject is simply not notable. GentlemanGhost 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per gidonb. The analysis is essentially correct. It's tempting to keep the article just because of her behavior, her claim of permission to write about someone being needed, and her claim that facts like a person's date of birth can be copyrighted. -- Kjkolb 20:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment LMAO!!! Monica de Bruyn has accomplished a lot...under her husband's name, in fact, she was on national television six months ago...not under the name Monica de Bruyn! LMAO!!!!
  • Notability here is Wikipedian notability. Please see the clarifications that I added between ** in the intro. gidonb 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Shuki 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment During the deletion project an anonymous user made many changes to the article. By WP policies I had to undo them for reasons explained in detail in the edit summary. All this is not so important as the article will probably be purged soon, by the virtue of consensus here. The edits included complaints on verification emails with private clients that probably bothered Ms de Bruyn. The user also commented that many of the problems were at the Dutch Wikipedia. I would like to add that many of the votes at the previous round here were from users whose prime activity is at the Dutch Wikipedia and much of the detoriation between the anon(s) and registered Wikipedia editors was around the Dutch article. I have been one of the few voices at both Wikipedias who consistently called to delete this article, which seemed also to be Ms De Bruyn's desire. I wish Ms De Bruyn a successful continuation of her career and hope an administrator will close this less favorable chapter of Wikipedia soon. gidonb 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I didn't think she was notable before, and I don't think she's notable now. My perception is that the previous "keep" was partly a "spite keep:" that is, it was motivated by anger against someone, claiming to be de Bruyn, who, I believe, created the article as self-promotion and then thought she could order it to be deleted when she discovered she could not control the content. Regardless of this side show, we do not need an article on her... even if, as with Universism, this should happen to coincide with the wishes of an effective self-promoter. Among other things, at present she is so unnotable that there is a dearth of verifiable sources and the article will always be skating on thin ice with respect to WP:V. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:40, 12 June 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.