Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Vlaardingerbroek


 * 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 delete per consensus from established editors Star   Mississippi  20:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Eva Vlaardingerbroek

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominating for procedural reasons, minimal sourcing and I am not sure it meets GNG. --ZemanZorg (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Nobody knows her. So there are no reactions. --ZemanZorg (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Eva Vlaardingerbroek has 250K followers on Twitter. That alone disproves the statement that nobody knows her. 2601:6C1:4101:50D0:4D0C:55EC:7788:87A6 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very impressed with this highly educated young lady and her willingness to express her views which are often contrary to the EU main media outlets.
 * She is a bright light of freedom of speech in what is becoming a dark and dismal tyrannical world. 76.128.179.29 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. ZemanZorg, since you raised it. I don't think that nobody knows her or that she doesn't pass the WP:GNG. She has been well covered and documented. But she is fringe and works as a host of something that is published on youtube. This is one of these cases where I think both the GNG and occupational notability guideline need to be met for keep. I agree with you on the bottom line that this should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * She is a ray of light in an increasingly crazy woke world if you delete her I will never contribute to Wikipedia again.
 * You should not be considering deleting people because you do not agree with their views which are becoming more and more articulated. 84.93.245.140 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fringe draws extra attention from the media. We need to control for that. There was also a "fling" here, an almost teary party leader, and, in general, a lot of youthfulness. Our subject handled that situation well. Credits where credits are due. But WP should not become too yellowish. If the BLP meets a professional standard in the future then an article would become justified. Then all the rest can fade into the background. That's my problem. There is a lot of background but no main story. My opinion is without prejudice on the person and on the type of fringe and aims to protect the topic of discussion. The last thing I care about is who her perceived enemies are. That's just a distraction. BTW, I do want people to contribute to WP yet such contributions should also provide quality for the reader. Otherwise, the contributions have negative utility. gidonb (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So why 'delete' this articulate young lady who expresses a viewpoint you don't agree with? If you are not interested in her viewpoints and political positions, just don't read her wikipedia page. It's that simple. What are you afraid? Deletion is an admission that you aren't bright enough or articulate enough to compete in the marketplace of ideas. The only reason one would just 'delete' this woman's viewpoints is they are not smart enough to compete with her expressed ideas. Man up and present your better arguments or positions, or just stop reading her wikipedia. Deletion is cowardice. 198.231.29.80 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How dare you call her “Fringe”. Please define “fringe” for me. When someone is so far with their own beliefs, anyone who challenges their beliefs could be “Fringe”. Sort of like how a hammer sees every problem as a nail. But, by a loose definition, if she is fringe, you could be considered “Fringe”. So, who determines if you are” Fringe” or she is? Obviously, since you and your ilk, want her removed, or censored, that is censorship, which my book makes YOU the “Fringe” and YOU should be removed. You, are the hammer.
 * We should only remove those calling for physical violence, she is just challenging intellectual thinking. If you can’t handle that, YOU are the problem. 45.26.95.237 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you misunderstood the basics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a marketplace of ideas or some other kind of forum. When I express a keep, delete or other opinion, I make a judgment whether a topic is encyclopedic and otherwise justified AT THAT TIME. Not in the future. Right now. And definitely not whether I agree with ideas, behavior, or whatever. That's irrelevant. The implication of your own projection on me is that all anon or new user opinions here, that look canvassed to this page anyway, should be discounted for WP:ILIKEIT. So be it. gidonb (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Another day, another anon. I do not suggest removing biographies of folks that call for physical violence. If the subject is important enough, it can be included in an encyclopedia. Opinions do not prohibit inclusion. These anons write from a reality where objective criteria, applied to all, seem to be a curse. I wish them all the best. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. First, this article summarises well what the person is notable for and that she is not very notable. However, multiple guest appearances on a major US TV channel make her notable enough. Second, I heard her name mentioned on a TV show and came to Wikipedia to read about her. My personal testimony is at least as a good an argument as "Nobody knows her" and "she is fringe", if not better. Third, there are plenty of articles about less notable people, e.g. researchers, which were created as part of initiative to increase the visibility of underrepresented groups on Wikipedia (such initiatives are often funded). If such a practice is valid, then the person in question being "fringe" should be recognised as an argument for keeping this article, not against. Fourth, the person appeared on FOX News as a commentator as recently as several months ago, and as far as I can judge from her biography, she might be having a brief hiatus in her political activity due to study- and family-related reasons. There is a good chance she will resume her political activity soon, so we will probably hear more about her. This is why it is reasonable to keep the article if in doubt.
 * AVM2019 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This opinion is grounded in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTALBALLING. As I pointed out, fringe is not a problem if a person is a well-known politician, author, musician, academic, clergy, etc. Not the case here. It's someone who was offered to be a candidate on a party list, did not run, and received some (often sensational) press coverage. In such cases, the requirement to meet a professional standard is reasonable. gidonb (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is very intelligent and she is becoming more well known all the time. I can almost guarantee if you delete it, you will have to bring it back. So save the trouble, just leave the page. It hurts nothing. 2601:1C2:300:DA20:0:0:0:5803 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC) — 2601:1C2:300:DA20:0:0:0:5803 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Please don't poison this valuable source of information with biased ideology. I don't want to see all the entries that I disagree with getting deleted, I hope the moderators will see the importance of maintaining the same privileges for all view points, and will preserve the integrity of this essential source. Ritmo2k1024 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Ritmo2k1024 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. FWIW, I just came here to look her up, as she keeps appearing in various international outlets. The article covered what I wanted to know, and from my own experience, I can confirm legitimate interest. I must admit, many of the "delete" arguments read like "I do not like her opinions" to me (as many "keep" arguments read like "I want to see her opinions covered"), neither do I, but in the end it just should be about providing background on prominently talking heads, and I want the information here. Re-quest (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with previous commentator. I came here to find out who she is following Mark Steyn appearance. I don't understand why 'fringe; or a youtube following means she should not have a Wikipedia presence. Daxkamala (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Daxkamala] (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Re-quest and Daxkamala, where did you read or hear about the existence of this discussion? gidonb (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a big banner across the top of the page on her! Daxkamala (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No professional or political significance. In the Netherlands, she has been in the news a couple of times for having a brief love affair with Thierry Baudet and being no. 5 on a concept list of candidates that never came into being. All the rest is a YouTube channel, a few TV appearances and another love affair. Is that really enough to warrant inclusion? &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC) EDIT: And in response to all those IP users and brand new accounts: no, this is not about miss Vlaardingerbroek spreading conspiracy theories and hatred. Nobody is suggesting that we delete Paul Cliteur, Thierry Baudet, Gideon van Meijeren, David Icke or Donald Trump, for that matter. Those people have similar opinions, but at least they have achieved something that makes them notable. But spreading those theories itself doesn't make a person notable. &mdash;IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu?  00:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article on the fiancé was already twice created and deleted. With all these IPs and new users appearing out of the blue, it's quite the PR machine! gidonb (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is insufficient independent and reliable WP:SECONDARY support for WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL notability, and this article appears to be WP:PROMO. The first two sources are articles she wrote, which are not independent. The third source is a 2020 report about political candidates that only says about her (translated): "Two women are among the first ten candidates: Member of the Senate Nicki Pouw-Verweij in third place and legal philosopher Eva Vlaardingerbroek in fifth place. She became known on television and social media for her right-wing views and her support for FvD." The fourth and fifth sources discuss a scandal related to a politician she was previously in a relationship with who reportedly "reacted emotionally this morning in Good Morning Netherlands when it turned out that Vlaardingerbroek also distanced himself from him" and a one line quote from her about his proposal to split the party. The sixth reference does not support the text it follows, because it is the third source. Source 7 is her in a YouTube video as a host. Source 8 is an interview with her promoting the show she hosts, with no secondary context or commentary. The other sources are FOXNews videos of her appearances and social media, which do not support notability because there is no secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete lacking reliable sources and her achievements are hardly noteworthy for an encyclopaedia. Also note the number of keep !voters that are single purpose editors. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As per source analysis by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:00, 21 November 2022 (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.