Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Vlaardingerbroek (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Consensus is not a vote, and a number of the keep arguments here are very weak and can be discounted. Even doing that, though, we still have reasonable disagreement about whether the sources are sufficient, and given the numerical split that means there's no consensus. (For the benefit of readers, this means that the article will be kept, at least for now.) I'm not relisting a second time given the heavy participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vlaardingerbroek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this isn't a G4, it does not appear that the factors raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Vlaardingerbroek have been resolved in this version. She has been in the news for her activism, but I am unable to find anything in depth. Star Mississippi 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Netherlands. Star Mississippi 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, Dr. B has requested not to be noticed of AfDs. Hence no note there. Don't want anyone to think I wasn't notifying them deliberately.) Star Mississippi 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I translated this from the Dutch version. I read Dutch articles am learning Dutch, so even if this is deleted again, I learned something from reading the sources. She has quite a few articles about her in mainstream Dutch news sources/magazines/online sites, and has made some notable TV appearances in the US and UK whether you agree with her opinions or not. Articles about her in the top Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf here, here, here but behind paywall. More full articles about her here in de Volkskrant, here in Trouw, here in RTL Nieuws, here in De Limburger and in Leidsch Dagblad here but behind paywalls. here, here and here in Het Parool, here in NOS (national broadcaster of Netherlands), and here in BNNVARA. This is in French, from the magazine Causeur, typical of the sort of coverage she has received. I am aware that she is a controversial figure, but she does have articles on her on five other Wikis and I thought it was inevitable that this article would have been recreated here at a later date. I think this can be further expanded by scouring the Dutch newspapers and notable online sites but most of them are behind paywalls... There is probably a valid reason why you can't find sources in the search engines. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has plenty of sources, and a search in Google News turns up many more. I disagree with her views on covid vaccination and feminism, and really do not believe that the Dutch government is conspiring with the World Economic Forum to grab farmland and use it to house immigrants in a supercity. But she is notable. Banning mention of subjects they dislike is what authoritarian governments do, not Wkiipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing authoritarian in deleting an article about an unnotable subject. Not even if the person in question herself says so. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. looks like a well sourced article. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources written about her in reliable Dutch sources to pass requirements, and dozens of further hits which could be used to expand this though most are behind a paywall. She has a big following on social media and to not have an article on here when she's on five other Wikipedias would look like we're trying to censor things. I think she would have a lot more coverage in big newspapers across Europe if her views and actions weren't the opposite of what their governments want to see. I think she's someone who'll become a bigger name over the next few years, whether you agree with her or not. I tried to add some criticism of her views on feminism for neutrality purposes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me as I add my comments< as I cannot see where one can write independently>

Anyhow, your comment seems to suggest that deleting Eva from Wikipedia, if that's what this is about, would be a rather retrograde step.

Her views would be welcome by many. Some may oppose them, but then if free discourse is to take place, censorship would be inadvisable. Censorship should only be used for violence, explicit (overt) content, incitement to illegality, etc. I would think that most people can discern for themselves, and those who might wish to censor other people, may not like the same done to them.

But it could be that many are open to either seeing another side, or they might be trying to formulate their own understanding. Deletion would stifle this.

Personally, I do have sympathy with Eva's stand , or stance. I refer to her by Christian name, as her surname is quite long and not easy to remember !

Eva is highly educated and very accomplished in her communication and formulation of her thoughts, and as this article says, she will go far.

Highly commendable. DREWF75 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— DREWF75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the previous AfD, which was only four months ago, absolutely nothing has changed to make her more notable than she was then. Her claim to notability is entirely based on the fact that she was on a draft list of FVD candidates back in 2020 and subsequently was one of those who left after the party exploded. If this would really make her notable, she would at least have been mentioned in Forum for Democracy or Thierry Baudet, but neither is the case. All the rest are videos on YouTube and Instagram, an internship in Brussels for half a year, two jobs that didn't last longer than a few months, a speech, a few opinion articles, a few TV appearances, and a few love relationships.
I would strongly suggest participants in this discussion to actually read the sources instead of just counting them. Most of the links given are not about Eva Vlaardingerbroek in particular, but just mention her in the context of that event from 2020; the more recent ones are columns mentioning her as an example of the extreme right grotesquely trying to hijack farmers' protests. The last link is about her father and only mentions Eva as a regular spreader of fake news. In reality, there is hardly any non-trivial coverage about this lady. And being intelligent or having interesting views obviously does not in itself make a person notable. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the first AFD the sources written purely about her in reliable sources wasn't demonstrated as it has been here. All of the sources linked above are about her and demonstrate notability. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are as reliable as they were four months ago. Recreating an article that has recently been deleted for lack of notability requires at least that the subject is more notable now than it was then. Besides, my point is that the existence of a few reliable sources alone is no evidence of notability: they should at least make it clear WHY the subject is notable. Her role in the collapse of FVD was a minor one, which probably explains why she isn't even mentioned in Forum for Democracy. Making videos on Instagram and YouTube doesn't make a person notable. All that's left is a person with extreme right views appearing a couple of times in extreme right media for no other reason than being a person with extreme right views? I mean, it's not like everybody who has ever been on TV is automatically important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, is it? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - okay, I don't know the lady, just came across this article (I'm a little sensitive to second-time AfDs). A sourced quote in the article says she is known for her opinions, clearly evidence of notability even without having to go to the rest of it, if you ask me; but she appears to have taken part on several famous news shows; and, to put it simply, the article is well sourced and meets WP:GNG. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's on a delete list, she has been gaining ground voicing the worries and tribulations of the Dutch farmers that echo across nations and are at odds with most government agendas at this time. We should instead keep this page and pay attention to her work and have conversations, exchange of ideas in order to move forward and do the best for the individual and the world. 2603:8000:A801:DA9:145A:E54C:F6D6:7A60 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is still not notable in any way. I totally agree with IJzeren Jan. --ZemanZorg (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ZemanZorg was the original AFD nominator and doesn't appear to be very experienced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZemanZorg: are you saying that none of the sources listed above that discuss her actually discuss her? There were no interviews on Fox, no discussion on Politico? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came to wikipedia to learn more about her after hearing her interviewed on the news. She is already in the news and wiki ought to have a record of some sort. Her notoriety lead me to want to learn more. 76.191.33.2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, hundreds of views each day [1] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Farmer–Citizen Movement, which opposes government regulations to cut nitrogen emissions from fertilizers, just won over 20% in the provincial elections and will now have 15 seats in the Senate, making it the largest party. Vlaardingerbroek seems to share many of their views. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Vlaardingerbroek is not affiliated with the BBB, and her views are far from those of the BBB. But even if, how does sharing the views of a political party affect an individual's notability? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just that she seemed to be in the thick of things during the run-up to the elections, giving her rather conspiratorial views of the nitrogen emission regulations. She was talking at demos, appearing on talk shows and generally getting herself noticed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per previous comments. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within the past week she has appeared on Jordan Peterson interview on Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.43.132 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything associated with Tucker carlson is suspect. Nuff said. 2601:840:8081:BC60:81CB:D701:CF4E:5533 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Not seeing any policy-based arguments in the keep !votes above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is a political commentator with an international presence. WP articles exist in several languages. The present article is well-researched. Ekem (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. Important for current discussions — Preceding unsigned comment added by GvtQTPI (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC) — GvtQTPI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The motive for deletion seems to be a dislike of the opinions of the subject. That’s not a good motive. 85.94.240.254 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi I think had genuine issues with the sources. Though I would have withdrawn personally if I saw somebody showed over a dozen sources written about it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for moving the input @Dr. Blofeld. You know I absolutely respect your writing and research and there was no malice in the deletion. I'll be honest, I wasn't familiar with the subject. To avoid a 3rd AfD-which none of us want- I felt consensus better than an early withdrawal. Star Mississippi 12:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not being deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd rather get the opposite impression: that at least some of those who absolutely want this article to be preserved are motivated by sympathy for her views. Ultimately, none of that matters. Although I have nothing but respect for Dr. Blofeld's work (and I am a fan of Blofeld in the performance of Donald Pleasence!). This is just about notability. Dr. Blofeld, where did you find this dozen sources that are only about her? The only two articles that are really about her are the dienstmaagd article in the Telegraaf (notes 6 and 19) and the interview (note 3). Notes 20–22 are only her relationship with Thierry Baudet; notes 9–10 are only about her being one of a few people being employed and then fired by a lawyer; notes 1, 5 and 14 only mention her briefly but do not give any substantial information; notes 2, 7, 11, 15, 16 en 18 are primary sources; note 12 is just a picture; note 17 is about her father; notes 4, 8 and 13 are columns (at least at the Dutch Wikipedia columns are not considered reliable sources). But that's not even my point. I still haven't seen a satisfying answer to the question what exactly makes her notable. She never held any political office, she is neither a scientist nor a journalist nor a writer, and except for a few months at a law firm never even had a job. True, she has been interviewed a couple of times by far right media, but every day, ever hour even, thousands of people are being interviewed on radio or TV. Shouldn't a person at least have achieved something to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly more sources which are purely about her than that, Het Parool and Causeur for a start. And she is mentioned in the title on a few of the sources, which if she wasn't notable she wouldn't be highlighted. I think you'll find that there are more conservative publications across Europe which have articles on her. The "mainstream media" as the right like to call it, particularly those controlled or partly funded by the government are not exactly going to rave about an opponent who is criticizing them internationally in big western countries like the US and Britain anyway. I dislike seeing Wikipedia criticized in the media or on social media as being portrayed as some sort of Far-Left controlled outlet which tries to block, censor or attack conservative people or views. Similarly I disliked Ted Gioia's (non political) criticism of Wikipedia and the deletion of an article he was interested in. I ended up recreating it and setting the record straight that the system isn't being gamed as he had thought. I will defend us if I think we are being attacked for not being neutral regardless if the subject is on the right or left or it's not politically related and will recreate something if I think the decision was wrong and the sources are there. The Farmer's protests and activism I think is a very notable contemporary subject in the Netherlands as Aymatth pointed out. Millions of people know who she is from her interviews in the US and UK, whether or not she has had a career like Baudet, and each day hundreds of people visit us looking for information about her. They will naturally assume we are being censored when five other Wikipedias have articles on her, and it is inevitable that it would be recreated (in a much worse state than currently). There's many articles about Pokemon characters and Youtubers I'd gladly throw in the bin and don't think are notable, but she is notable to these people looking for information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for taking the time to reply. But let me ask you: have you actually read these sources? Because if you have, you should have noticed that the text from Het Parool is a column, in other words: the opinion of one person. Same goes for the Causeur text. Both are even written in the first person! Besides, how can you claim the Causeur article is "purely about her", since all it says about her is that she is pretty, that she Julien Rochedy's girlfriend, and that she denounced feminism at an FVD meeting? That's my problem with all these sources except for the two I mentioned: either they just mention her in some broader context, or they are personal opinions. See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. As for your other arguments:

You are quite right about Wikipedia being attacked by the far right for "censorship", but you are boogieing on thin ice if that's a reason for you to be extra lenient towards them. Don't you agree that would be succumbing to intimidation? Besides, there's nothing uncommon about the censorship card being drawn in deletion discussions about unnotable subjects, and the fact that the far right makes more noise about it doesn't change that.
The farmers' protest is indeed a very notable subject and it is already covered. But being there does not make an individual participant notable. (see: WP:INHERIT).
„Millions of people know who she is” – that's a bold statement that requires proof, but even if it's true: WP:BIG.
„hundreds of people visit us looking for information about her” – you don't know that. People may land on a page for various reasons, and statistics are easy to manipulate. But even then, it's not a notability criterion (see: WP:POPULARPAGE).
„five other Wikipedias have articles on her” – same thing (see: WP:OTHERLANGS).
„it is inevitable that it would be recreated” – not necessarily, it is always possible to put a lock on a title to prevent people from recreating a page about a non-notable subject.
„There's many articles about Pokemon characters and Youtubers” – again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid criterion.

And let me repeat: this is not about censorship of political views, but much as I appreciate your efforts, I simply don't see how the sources you quote provide genuine evidence of notability. Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of one person is still coverage and valid in encyclopedia articles. It's not about being "extra lenient" to anybody, it proves them wrong if anything as they thought there was a cabal of editors conspiring to censor her from here at all costs. If I thought we were right to delete it and that the sources weren't there I wouldn't touch it with bargepole. I'm surprised that there is an article on Dutch Wikipedia then if there are many like you who think she's not notable. Was there ever an AFD on Dutch Wikipedia? If it was kept, why was that? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page meets relevant criteria. Globesam (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Globesam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 14:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NPERSON, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.