Wikipedia:Notice board for topics related to the Netherlands/solved 1

Protected page: Arnoud Engelfriet

I have temporarily protected the article about Arnoud Engelfriet to deal with vandalism and paedophilia allegations, and after having been contacted by Arnoud Engelfriet. The matter involves external information in Dutch. Could a Dutch speaker comment on this so that the matter may be settled. Thanks in advance for your help. --Edcolins 14:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need something to be translated? —Ruud 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make my mind about the matter, yes, this: http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/2006/01/francisco_van_jole_pleegt_smaa_1.html. Thanks.--Edcolins 15:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly looking over the material I would suggest either

Deleting and protection the article on the grounds of non-notability (although Google reports 25.900 hits)
Expanding coverage on the incedent instead of just having anonymous users providing one slanderous link. As Francisco van Jole is reasonable well-known Dutch journalist this story might develop in the media, which unfortunatly for Arnoud might become one of the reasons for his notability.

I'll translate the article for you. —Ruud 15:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco van Jole commits slander
Radio-presentor Francisco van Jole has gone to far by accusing lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet of pedofilia and criminal acts during a live broadcast, according to weblog Retecool (popular dutch weblog). Engelfriet was lured to the studio under false premisis. After an introductory dialogue, Van Jole stated that Engelfried had a double agenda because on his website he had posted a few sentences about anonymity while being a pedofile himself. Retecool investigated all statements made by Engelfriet and the conclusion was devestating to Van Jole, who claimed to be practicing journalism. Nothing indicated Engelfriet was a pedofile. Van Jole is known as a critic of weblogs, because they insult people, don't check facts and operate anonymously. It is expected that Van Jole will apologize for his actions in his next broadcast, to avoid further legal action.

It should be noted though that Van Jole and Retecool have a history of animosity towards eachother. —Ruud 15:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation. It is not clear to me whether this incident is notable enough to be covered by the article. I removed the protection for now and we will see how the matter develops in the future. --Edcolins 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the incident might be covered (although media attention seems to have tapered out now). What was happening is people adding statements like "is a paedophile" which cannot be concluded from the broadcast or anything else. And statements like that shouldn't be made without some pretty good proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.159.222 (talk • contribs)

Why do we actually HAVE a page about this guy? What's so notable about someone who writes about law? He's really only linked on the Patent Attorney and Software patents under the European Patent Convention pages. And the page is basically just a rehash of his resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.55.53 (talk • contribs)

Be bold, go for it if you believe the article should be deleted. Anything you need to know about submitting an article for deletion is there: Wikipedia:Deletion process, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cheers. --Edcolins 10:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]