Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George de Menil

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George de Menil[edit]

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

I think it's time to give some scrutiny to this couple. For one, both articles are by a single-purpose account, and the de Menils are wealthy, which together strongly suggest some form of COI editing. And then there's the problem of sourcing. Various grand claims are made on behalf of both, but the articles are basically unsourced. For George, the citations are simply to his books (no page numbers, either). For Lois, basically the same thing. In short, we don't have independent evidence that either of these figures is notable, as defined by WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles for the parents, Dominique de Menil and John de Menil (who do seem to be notable), are written in a similarly long, bloated, grandiose way, and have also been extensively edited by apparent SPAs. There's a 1986 New York Times profile of the family here. Leaning toward keep but put all of these articles on a diet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2015 (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.