Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiré Dubounet

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 Keep but stub and rewrite from scratch.. If maintaining a NPOV article proves impossible than the next discussion will undoubtedly reach a different conclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desiré Dubounet

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

Doesn't meet WP:FRINGEBLP, and no other claims of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of her before, but after some googling it seems she passes the criteria of "must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Long article on leading Hungarian web portal index.hu (mainly about her movie being crap)
Another article on the same portal (about the same movie, while in production)
Another long article on index.hu, this time about her quackery
Another article on a different portal, again about quackery
Article about her suing national airline for discrimination, on the second most important web portal in Hungary
Detailed biography on nol.hu (Nol was the website of Népszabadság, a well-known left-leaning newspaper allegedly closed down by Fidesz)

Based on these, she is notable (although I'm not going to miss the article if it gets deleted). – Alensha ^talk 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable fraudster. Plenty of coverage in English and foreigb media sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RS there establishing notability as a fraud. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written as a defence of the subjects work, and clearly fails NPOV guidelines. We lack the level of good coverage needed to create a truly balanced article. When articles get into special pleading, and the subject is a living person, the only option is to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true, but that doesn't make the subject any less notable. It should be re-written to follow NPOV, not deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well supported by reliable sources and quite notable. There may be a NPOV problem, but this can be fixed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about enough substantive reliable secondary sources - specifically the Seattle Times article (regional press but WP:RS) and the "Science Left Behind" book, published by PublicAffairs, a reputable publisher. The federal court case, though a primary source, is worth noting as well. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2018 (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.