Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marinza Bruineman

: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. Despite the possible single-purpose account !votes, it has not been shown that the subject is notable outside of one event. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Marinza Bruineman]]=

{{notavote}}

:{{la|Marinza Bruineman}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marinza Bruineman}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Marinza Bruineman}})

Non-notable. Fails BLP1e - this individual is notable only because of her relationship with Oliver Jovanovic, the man convicted and subsequently acquitted in the Cybersex Rape Case Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:Keep: She is marginal, but I have added cited info that shows that she has taken up a few other causes that dodge the 1E . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Answertwo (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for that. I still think that's too marginal, but maybe the Sam Sloan connection will swing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

***KEEP*** 'Fails BLP1e' needs to be substantiated. Otherwise too trivial an objection to warrant deletion of bio." —Preceding unsigned comment added by VillaMaybach (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — VillaMaybach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:On the contrary, the burden falls on those wishing to keep to show that she is notable for anything other than being Jovanovic's girlfriend and supporter.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - the sources of anything outside the rape case is from marginal sources. I can't see how this has any relevance past yesterday's news. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • KEEP: Based on the founder's own credo: "I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815517776622597.html] Furthermore, nothing marginal about someone's fight for justice and the betterment of it for ALL - not just Jovanovic's.4Justice2 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — 4Justice2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP* - The matter is far from over! It's all about a Prosecutor who deliberately overlooked evidence and the fundamental question is .. 'why would she do that, what is her motiveItalic text'? Being a lawyer myself I strongly disagree with anyone argueing that it would be marginal - please Mr. Lawyer, explain why it is just marginal when a Prosecutor overlooks evidence in order to send someone to jail long enough to destroy an entire life! In the mean time I get the nasty feeling that someone is not pleased with this publication about Marinza Bruineman. Who could that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansummertime (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — Indiansummertime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:All of which is relevant to Jovanovic, not Bruineman, and would have no place in an article about Bruineman anyway. Please take your daft conspiracy theories elsewhere, she is only marginally notable for her activities in relation to the Jovanovic case, and that's the only reason this article was nominated for deletion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete The subject does not satisfy WP:BIO since the only assertion of notability is that the subject is the former girlfriend and supporter of someone involved in bizarre and protracted court proceedings (and who is now acquitted released). The references confirm that the subject was involved with the notable person (and with two other incidental issues unrelated to notability), but the references do not establish the subject's notability. Per WP:CRYSTAL we do not create articles in advance; if developments make the subject notable, a new article can be created. For reference, this AfD page has been edited by several users with a short contribution history: 4Justice2, Answertwo, Indiansummertime, Mytwosense, VillaMaybach. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • PLEASE NOTE Regardless of the opinions about the above, and since we're all interested in the crux of the matter, Jovanovic was NOT ACQUITTED. His case was dismissed. His case was dismissed because the victim did not want to testify again. There is a big difference between being acquitted of a crime, or having one's case dismissed. Please do not propagate falsehoods while discussing this article. (Not sure what a short contribution history has to do with facts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Justice2 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::Thank you for the correction. I have struck out my incorrect language. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • ***KEEP*** The person who made this AfD nomination seems to be contending that she should not have been made notable by the media. However that is not the standard. Anybody who has a recent published article about her like this http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/01/2009-11-01_shell_turn_the_tables_on_former_sm_susp.html read by millions of readers is notable regardless of whether the nominator thinks that she should be or not. This also does not mention the numerous times Bruineman has been interviewed on TV or the radio that we cannot link to. kayokimura

:Nice theory, but sadly not true. Read Wikipedia guidelines on Notability - one artice does not constitute notability and nototiety for one event does not constitute notability.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. This individual isn't notable outside of the one event and therefore fails WP:BIO. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • DeletePer nomination and per WP:BLP1E. Also notability is not inherited from an accused criminal by his friend and advocate. Edison (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows no signs of enduring notability: [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22Marinza+Bruineman%22+-wiki+-facebook+-wikipedia+-twitter+-youtube+-myspace&start=100]. Fails to meet the criteria of WP:BIO; falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. — Rankiri (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (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.