Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 15:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Monica de Bruyn
Monica de Bruyn has requested deletion of the page Monica de Bruyn. No permission was given for publication; information is incorrect. monicadebruyn@newyork.com. For publication one MUST ask for permission in advance. These are the rules and everybody knows it - except Wikipedia. -- unsigned comment from 149.123.12.74, moved from VfD log page
 * keep - many (Dutch) google entries: seems interesting; if this is a copyvio it should be listed on WP:CP; if it is wrong, fix it. Mozzerati 00:13, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
 * Keep . I'll give Ms. de Bruyn the benefit of the doubt and assume she knew nothing about this absurd attempt to delete the article on the untrue premise that "one MUST ask for permission in advance".  If such a principle was actually true, no journalism could take place except by permission of the subjects.  I suspect what really happened is that someone created the article to be unilateral praise of Ms. de Bruyn and didn't realize it would be edited to NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)  Update:  changing my vote to Weak keep.  It's still of course quite ridiculous that we would delete an article just because the subject was under the mistaken impression that their permission was required.  However, a Google search only turns up about 312 hits, some of which apparently belong to an unrelated children's book author, so notability may be the actual deciding issue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as information is factual and NPOV, I don't see a problem. Cnwb 00:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was apparently created by an anonymous fan of hers.  Several of us cleaned up the puffery, but that was months ago, so I don't think the deletion request is based on the NPOVing.  Any copyvio has likely been reworded.  Notability: She's one of the columnists listed at http://www.blueagle.com/ (though I admit I don't know their criteria), and she has a nonfiction book coming out later this year, so I'd be inclined to keep even without the Dutch notability. JamesMLane 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as it is factual, NPOV, and not copyvio. Zzyzx11 00:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the information is incorrect then Monica de Bruyn should correct it. -- RHaworth 01:01, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
 * For publication one MUST ask for permission in advance. These are the rules and everybody knows it. Sez who? Keep, minor but still notable enough. --Calton 01:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, she doesn't seem all that notable, which the article makes reasonably clear.  If this had been proposed for VfD in the normal way, I don't know that I would have voted to keep it, even though I don't think we should delete the article just because the subject objects to it.  Actually, I don't see any reason why someone would object to it, either -- unless she finds it "damning by faint praise", or in this case, non-praise.   I suspect that Antaeus Feldspar has pegged the situation pretty well.   I'm inclined to vote delete anyway because of the notability issue, but the  unreasonable demand to delete it makes me feel contrary.  --BM 03:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite this weird vfd nomination, this woman appears to be a journalist of little note, 'delete --nixie 04:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subjects of Wikipedia articles do not get the choice of whether or not they can have their articles deleted.  Though it would be a good way to get the article kept.  RickK 06:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, if her book were published would that make a difference for you? Part of my thinking is that, with the article already in place, we might as well keep it, instead of deleting and then re-creating it later this year because her book has pushed her over the bar.  My personal opinion, which I know others don't share, is that, if someone has written a serious nonfiction book, published by a genuine (non-vanity) publisher, and someone else has created an article about the author, then the article shouldn't be deleted. JamesMLane 10:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Megan and delete. It does look to me like people are voting to keep because the nomination is so weird, as BM suggests. Radiant! 09:00, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE!!! Too bad, RHaworth, I ain't going correct anything here. I was NOT born on Jan., 5, 1977. I NEVER had throat cancer. How did you get this information? This article is rubbish - no permission for publication was asked. DELETE. -- unsigned vote by 149.123.12.74, who already voted as the initiator of the VfD.
 * Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough.  De Bruyn's opinion is irrelevant, of course.  When permission was mentioned, I thought this was a copyvio, but if the info is incorrect, then it's obviously not a copyvio. Gamaliel 19:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: BM puts it very well. Neither the article nor the website make this person seem very notable. However, it's hard not to feel inclined to vote keep when you read the latest addition to Talk:Monica de Bruyn by the person claiming to be Ms de Bruyn:
 * And now remove this page or else other measures will be taken. No permission for publication was given, nor by my p.a., nor by me. CORRECT information about me - see, CORRECT information - will be published when WE say so. We are not too crazy about people who publish INCORRECT information.
 * Does this constitute a bannable offence by No legal threats? Information in the article that is claimed to be incorrect by the poster should be verified or removed, though. / Alarm 19:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Blanking the article, as User:Monicadebruyn did, will certainly constitute a bannable offense if she does it again. RickK 23:08, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete this page. -- unsigned 'vote' by Monicadebruyn; however, 149.123.12.74 is also claiming to be Ms. de Bruyn; since neither has threatened to sue the other for impersonation, it is pretty clear that they are one and the same. This then makes the third attempt to vote by 149.123.12.74.
 * Comment: I've discovered there is a children's book artist/author with the same name, born 1952, author of books including The Beaver Who Wouldn't Die. Most likely this is not the same person.  Gamaliel 20:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, despite the almost-overwhelming temptation to vote "keep," out of spite for the ill-mannered Ms. de Bruyn. P. S. Evidence for non-notability: no hits in New York Times online database, under any of these spellings: "Monica de Bruyn" or "Monica deBruyn" or "Monica de Bruijn" or "Monica deBruijn" or "Monika de Bruijn" or "Monika deBruijn". Dpbsmith (talk) 20:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep what is notable, she is notable enough in the Netherlands and this isn't the wikipedia you have to be notable in the States before you get in encyclopedia. Waerth 20:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Borderline notable, although as a journalist myself I have to find the rationale for this VFD questionable. If there are errors, correct them. If it's a copyvio, when mark it as such, or better still, write something new. If she didn't want to be listed anywhere, she should never have entered this industry. 23skidoo 02:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * One wonders what kind of journalist thinks that she has to get the approval of her subjects before she writes articles about them. RickK 05:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Besednjak 13:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, will the people asserting that she is notable help the rest of us understand why? The situation is confused by the existence of a childrens' book author or illustrator of the same name who is almost certainly not the same person. It's a little hard to construct a good Google search but when I search for pages a) in English, b) excluding the words udry pictures illustrator wikipedia lewinsky, I only get 84 hits. She gets zero hits in Google groups (USENET), where right-wing commentators are frequently discussed. And the New York Times knows nothing about this New York resident. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Not my strongest "keep" vote ever -- a contender for my weakest, in fact -- but I'm swayed by: the listing of her column on BlueEagle (though I admit I don't know their criteria); her registration with a European speakers' bureau (same admission); evidence of Netherlands notability; forthcoming nonfiction book. JamesMLane 06:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * BlueEagle doesn't look all that impressive to me, in fact, I got the impression it was a Geocities site. Gamaliel 17:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a big problem with people who are judging the notability of a Dutch journalist by whether she has hits in English. en.Wikipedia is specifically designed to cater to an international audience.  Checking for hits in Dutch seems obvious to me. Mozzerati 20:16, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotable, regardless of whether that's what the rude anonymous poster claiming to be her wants or not, because it's the right thing to do. I also would like to add that I have a big problem with the assumption that someone would be notable enough for an English language encyclopedia based solely upon Dutch notability. Google hits in Dutch are completely irrelevant for this vote. Let the Dutch language version of wikipedia vote on her Dutch qualifications for notability. DreamGuy 01:38, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Dutch notability is relevant. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the culture-of-English-speaking-countries Wikipedia (de facto by practical considerations, perhaps, but not de iure). If, say, Dieter Bratwurst is notable enough in Austria to have an article in the German Wikipedia, he could have an article in English too, regardless of whether anyone has heard of him internationally. It's true that notability is more readily established on the Dutch Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it "irrelevant" here. 82.92.119.11 01:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Jeroenvrp 01:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems non-notable as yet to me. -- SGBailey 00:46, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * Keep out of sheer cussedness. I don't think we should be removing even a borderline article under threat by its subject of an (unjustified) lawsuit. Sets a lousy precedent. She has no case. BTW, DreamGuy's apparent claim that foreign-language articles can't establish notability seems to me to be equally ridiculous. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep because she is just above the bar of notability, and also to spite her. DaveTheRed 19:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.