Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pieke Roelofs


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Choiwc (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Pieke Roelofs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject of article does not satisfy WP:BIO.

Subject's work on various social issues such as #filmzedan and Stichting Cassandra are either only supported by primary sources or not supported at all, so Subject cannot be considered as a public figure under the criteria of WP:BASIC.

Subject may still not satisfy notability when considered as a crime victim. Subject may fall under the criteria for people notable for only one event (WP:1E). Subject is only notable for her alleged assault, rape, and subsequent libel against her by a former colleague. While Subject's experiences are shocking and may hold merit, the events described in the article are all related to the same aforementioned event. Since both the event (criminal activity directed against one person) and the Subject (a private person who may not be notable for other activities, as stated above) may not be notable, the present article does not satisfy notability and merits prompt deletion as per Wikipedia policy.

However, since I cannot read Dutch or any other language in which the cited resources are written, I cannot vouch for the article's notability (or lack thereof) with full confidence. I would like to invite administrators and moderators fluent in the language to review the cited references and consider whether the article merits deletion.

This is my first experience with proposing article deletion, so I hope that moderators etc. can give me the benefit of the doubt regarding any violations of protocol, procedure, or misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Feel free to make suggestions on my talk page etc. etc. so I may improve. - Choiwc (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: Situation far too complicated for discussion in AfD. May have inflamed passions counterproductive to Wikipedia. I apologise for causing a nuisance. - Choiwc (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most sources are about her case and do not go in to detail about Roelofs or they just mention her. This source is definitely reliable and significant coverage (national newspaper), but that is just one. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: In reference to your opening remarks, Stichting Cassandra is a legal foundation, not a “social event.” The fact that the user proposing this page be deleted cannot even read the sources quoted in the article tells me this is a spurious endeavour beyond my understanding. Happy to amend any inaccuracies purported to be found within the article. As far as I’m concerned, the factual declarations are rigorously backed with secondary sources. However, scrutiny is always welcome. - Dom Forde (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have corrected the characterisation of Ms Roelofs's work in legal issues and social movements, and I thank him/her for the reminder—that was an error on my part. Despite this error, I believe my case for deletion remains sound. IMO Forde's objections are twofold: first, that my illiteracy in Dutch precludes me from evaluating whether the information presented in the sources supports the claims in the article; second, that as far as he/she knows, all said claims are accurate.


 * Regarding the first objection, I have clearly stated in my nomination that I await the efforts of Dutch-literate editors in evaluating the substance of the cited sources. Indeed, Tristan Surtel has done this, and has found that 'most sources are about [Ms Roelofs's] case and do not go in to[sic] detail about Roelofs or just mention her'. According to WP:NOENG, 'if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page'. I believe that this implies that the onus is on the author, not myself or other Dutch-illiterate editors, to understand and present the material in the sources in a format comprehensible to English speakers. The author is reminded that, no offence meant, this is English Wikipedia and editors should not be expected to understand any other language while discussing articles. If the author wishes to bring up the sources written in Dutch as support for his position, it would be best if he/she could provide a translation of the relevant material. Otherwise, I and other editors will take Surtel's summary, along with any other translations posted here, as fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Verifiability dictates that English-speaking editors are qualified to review any article in English Wikipedia regardless of the language of the sources.


 * As a side note, it seems that the author believes that my nomination is spurious, and therefore in bad faith. I would like to reassure him/her that this is not the case: I came across this article in the new page feed a few weeks ago, reviewed it, thought it not notable, and made a note to nominate it for deletion at a later date (now). Please do not view this incident as an attack on your character: I am trying to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I simply believe that Ms Roelofs and her experiences are not notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. At the risk of violating WP:AGF, I assume good faith in the author and ask him/her respectfully to do the same.


 * Regarding the second objection, having the claims in the article backed up by sources, even rigorously as the author claims, is not enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia; the subject must also satisfy Notability. The decision on whether this criterion is met is left to more experienced editors than myself; I have said all I wish to say in the nomination. - Choiwc (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no indication of lasting notability -- NOT NEWS is the relevant policy  DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC) This is more complicated than I realised.  DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Concern


 * Hi there. I know it's unusual as the person who this page is about to reply, but I was notified this page was created about me and that very quickly after it, people have been trying to vandalise it and then a user made claims that aren't true and this user seems to covertly deminish my work as a whistleblower. I must say I am not surprised at all to find 'this situation' and I will clarify why in my next points. Please see this concern as a comment from the whistleblower this page is about.


 * I'm a long time Wiki contributor myself, and while I must say I appreciate Wiki users Solidhelium, Materialscientist, PPP, Tony1 GoingBatty, Dom Forde, Rodw, Celestina007 have put up and cleared up a very factual page with resources (and have kept an eye on vandalism) concerning my activism and work, the history of this page and subsequently the requested deletion, after mutiple Wiki users already checked it and didn't mark it for deletion, alarms me. I'd like to add a few things to this conversation to consider because what's going on might indicate something the Wiki community should be aware about and consider in this discussion.


 * First of all, anyone who reads some of the news sources mentioned on this page - as well as other media articles about me which aren't sourced here - will find out I've been a victim of a defamation campaign since 2017. I quote newspaper Algemeen Dagblad - who published a reconstruction of my case which was also published by many other newspapers such as De Limburger, BN DeStem, De Gelderlander and more      : "Roelofs has been threatened on the internet by anonymous accounts since 2017. She is called "whore" and "liar", is said to use drugs, be psychotic and have staged everything with actors. They wish her suicide and the stake. The sister of the youtuber emails Roelofs: "Stop it, or I will ruin you."' There are hundreds social media pages online where anonymous accounts defame me using my real name or business name. There are people - very clearly - who rather want the public to find those pages with anonymous smears, than an actually well-sourced Wiki page (I must say I was quite surprised and impressed seeing how well sourced this page was and how also objective - it's refreshing to see after having seen so many unsourced anonymous pages smearing me as a result of speaking out against a public person with almost 2 million 'fans' at this point), and thus we need to be vigilant and question the deletion of pages about whistleblowers, because those who request deletion, might have an agenda.


 * Secondly, from the history, I can see the last few days 2 IP accounts tried vandalising this page already, and next user Choiwc added it for deletion, stating something rather interesting: "I cannot read Dutch or any other language in which the cited resources are written", so how objective are they being here? If they don't understand what's said in a talk show about me, don't understand the articles about me, why do they try to have a page deleted when they can't even understand the resources on the page which don't only mention my own criminal case, but cases of other rape victims I've brought attention to in the media? Is it because Wiki users actually made an effort to factually state verified information about me that Choiwc tries to have it deleted?


 * Furthermore, Choiwc states "Subject's participation in (...) Stichting Cassandra are either only supported by primary sources or not supported at all" and "Subject is only notable for her alleged assault, rape, and subsequent libel against her by a former colleague.", which isn't true. There are 3 news articles and a 'consultation' published on the Dutch government's website, about my participation in Stichting Cassandra.   As I am the founder of a foundation currently active in 5 languages, it's strange user Choiwc states my 'involvement' in Stichting Cassandra is "only supported my primary sources or not supported at all". Why do they try to diminish the work I've been doing - even try to make it out like my involvement in the foundation I started is 'not supported at all' - while newspapers have written about it? And why do they try to make out this page is only about 1 case (my own), when as a whistleblower I have brought attention to multiple cases in The Netherlands, not just my own?    . Why would this user state all these things that aren't true and undermine my work and paint a picture of someone only known for 1 case? It seems like an attempt to subtly defame me, which is worrisome given the evidence of the online defamation campaign concerning me.


 * Especially given the two other IP accounts who tried to vandalise the page before user Choiwc, it's concerning user Choiwc tries to have the page deleted, because I'm a whistleblower who has been quite critical of her own government to the point where I participated in a 1 year investigation into the treatment of victims, resulting in a reconstruction of my case being published in multiple newspapers and an overal investigation I'm mentioned in that has been brought up by Amnesty International.


 * I noticed the newest news article about my own case hasn't been added to this page, which should be important to mention too. It mentions the procedural violations of the Dutch court in my case - after I became a whistleblower - concerning the 'work colleague', and human rights violations and 'clerrical errors' by the Public Prosecution Service, and that my lawyer's next move it to present the case at the European Court of Human Rights. Given the potential violations of human rights of the Dutch government in the case of a whistleblower, I would myself say given the media attention for my own case and the attention I helped brought to other victims cases, there might be reasons for people to have this page deleted simply because of that.


 * I would also like to point out that Choiwc first ever Wiki edit concerned the page about 'The Little Prince'. The Little Prince is the book the 'work colleague' (the youtuber mentioned on this page about me), gave me when we starting working together, when I met him in person. He told me it was his favourite book. Now this might be a coincidence - that this user who tries to have this page deleted, first edit was also on this book 'The Little Prince' - but there's another thing I would like to put to everyone's attention: yesterday this user edited their Wiki page adding the text "New editor, who dis? :-)" while they clearly are no new user. Their first edit was on 02:38, 1 October 2014 - The Little Prince. Given I am working on a book about my experiences as a whistleblower and experience with online abuse, stalking and defamation, and because I am followed by filmmakers who are working a documentary about my work as a whisteblower, I will archive this page for historic purposes, given the beforementioned points as well as 'The Little Prince' first Wiki edit of Choiwc. It surely is interesting.. I have provided a picture of the book the 'work collegue' gave me. Since I live in The Netherlands, you can understand it's probably very difficult for me to find this book somewhere within 24 hours, in English also. If needed I can provide conversations between the 'work colleague' and I where we discuss the book.




 * I hope the Wiki community will look into my concerns and if it's decided to update the page with further resources and keep it, will immediately protect the page based on the points I've made... And I'm not saying that because this page is about me. I'm saying it as someone who has contributed and donated to Wikipedia and as someone who understands the importance of Wiki and specifically the work of whistleblowers. It's concerning when there are hundreds of social media pages where a whistleblower is smeared by anonymous accounts and multiple parties might have an interest in having a well-sourced pages about said whistleblower vandalised and marked for deletion. PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Off-topic. This thread concerns whether the present article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Ms Roelofs baselessly accuses me of being a sock-puppet account controlled by her alleged former abuser. I have no knowledge of the abuser's identity or motives. Again, I ask everyone on this thread to remain civil, assume good faith, and refrain from hypothesising about anyone's character. If you wish, I am happy to call in an administrator or experienced editor who can weigh the situation carefully and assess my motives. I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but I believe that my actions are in good faith and beneficial to Wikipedia. With all due respect, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the incidents detailed in the article are unlikely to have lasting notability. IMHO it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Choiwc (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Red herring - a diversion tactic. You manipulatively tried to make yourself look like a new editor while you have been on Wiki for 6 years. Of course I will ask questions in a case like this and obviously you try to divert from this topic because it's clear you are not here arguing in good faith. You might know posh words and can make yourself look like you are contributing in good faith, but it's clear you are not and you are somehow invested in having this page deleted. You went out of your way to try to have this page deleted while a number of Wiki users contributed to it - and you make out as if all those users didn't fact check anything when they reviewed the page. You are insulting the users who put effort in creating this page, while at the same time admitting you are unable to fact check the page. You even are trying to rile up an army by adding the discussion on other pages, after you falsely stated things about me on this page and tried to diminish my work and attempted to paint me as a person known for only 1 thing. Diminishing my work is exactly what anonymous accounts are doing on pages outside Wiki (which has been published about by over 9 newspapers) - and you show a similar pattern. Worse, you don't even apologise for your behaviour and ignore when I bring up your questionable history and manipulation. Instead you falsely state I accuse you "of being a sock-puppet account" while I simply brought up your questionable history and the patterns I see and remark them without actually accusing you of anything. You know what normal people would do when they realise they are talking to a victim of a defamation campaign? They would be very careful in discussion, read the further resources, and be empathetic in communication and try to make clear to that victim they aren't handling in bad faith. That's not what you do. It's very clear you are biased and don't respect me as a human being at all and have a motive behind your writings about me. It's even more clear from how you respond to me compared to how you responded to Dom Forde who literally said about you "The fact that the user proposing this page be deleted cannot even read the sources quoted in the article tells me this is a spurious endeavour beyond my understanding." Did you get hostile towards them? No, you said: "I thank him/her for the reminder—that was an error on my part". But when I bring up concerns, you throw the red herring and attempt to frame me. That does not sound like someone who should participate in discussion on a page concerning a whistleblower who is the victim of a defamation campaign. Instead, that sounds exactly like someone who has been participating in the defamation campaign or someone who is invested in furthering that defamation campaign - even on Wikipedia! You use 'sockpuppet' account as if we are on Reddit (where most pages defaming me reside). This is Wikipedia. Everything you write will be backed up and you cannot delete it, so please, go ahead and write more, I'm watching, and everyone else is watching too. I am beyond interested how you are going to justify that you tried to make yourself look like a 'new editor' while you have been Wiki for 6 years and rarely participated in those 6 years - but for some reason having this page deleted, is your priority in 2020. Do you have a problem with pages about women by any chance - since you tried to diminish my (published) work and even attempted to make out I am not linked to the foundation I founded? Because in that case you might want to know about WikiProject_Women: "This project addresses the under-representation of content on Wikipedia about women (both real and fictional) and covering women's perspectives. Only 17% of Wikipedia biographies are about women. It also addresses women's works, such as the paintings they created, books they wrote, scientific discoveries they made or the organizations they created." Your behaviour - like user Dom Forde said - is a spurious endeavour indeed. I can't believe - as someone who contributed to Wikipedia for years after having just found out a bunch of good-faith Wiki users made this very well resourced page about me - that I'm finding myself now so subtly targeted in the community I love, by you Choiwc. I hope it will be called out because you are creating a hostile environment on Wikipedia and not only have you been disrespectful to me, wrote things about me that aren't correct and diminished my contribution to exposing social issues in society - you also diminished the contributions of the Wiki users who wrote, contributed and reviewed this page. Users who seem to actually know what they are talking about and were able to read the resources - unlike you. PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2020 (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.