Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Caesar

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Irene Caesar

Irene Caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

topic does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. ( Scaleshombre (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The article meets the criteria of notability. I have inserted information, referenced to the secondary reliable sources, supporting the criteria of notability. Note, that this kind of information, was repeatedly deleted from the article. Instead of reliable sources, references to self-published material were inserted. One person has repeatedly removed links to secondary reliable sources and inserted links to self-published materials. This is against Wikipedia policy. (Personal attack removed) --— PeaceForAll777 ^talk \\ 10:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — PeaceForAll777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - According to Wikipedia criteria, this article definitely passes the criteria of noticeability. Scaleshombre is engaged in vandalism via trying not once to insert abusive material into this article, based upon his rejection of the subject's views on history, and now filed the unjustified claim for the deletion of the article. (Personal attack removed) --— sophiedookh ^talk \\ 12:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sophiedookh (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Sophiedookh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@sophiedookh -- Please note I've removed your personal attack on me, but left the thrust of your argument intact.--Scaleshombre (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC) ^{moved and edited per the move by User:Dreadstar.}

Hatting unnecessary repetition of Wikipedia:Deletion policy criteria and off-topic commentary. Dreadstar ☥ 03:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here are the Reasons for deletion in the Wikipedia policy: Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS Collapsed copy/pasted Wikipedia policy on deletion unrelated to this AfD Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA Redundant or otherwise useless templates - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS Categories representing overcategorization - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS Any other content not suitable for an encyclopaedia -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS @Sophiedookh: While I know how angering/stressful it can be to see your hard work nominated for deletion, some things to keep in mind: Only the reason for deletion need be addressed, not all reasons for deletion. Please check WP:N for more information about this one -- "notability" is kind of a technical term on Wikipedia. Please link to policies rather than copy/paste -- and you can usually take for granted people participating know (or should know) the reasons for deletion. Use of CAPS is also generally unsightly and distracting. A final stylistic note: html tags are typically not needed -- and can create problems -- so no need for <p></p>. You might want to poke around Wikipedia:Help. Focus on the article and the reason for deletion, not the person nominating it. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is assume good faith. To say the nominator is on a "defamation campaign" is completely inappropriate here. "Defamation" is, furthermore, a serious allegation with potential legal implications. If you feel a user is acting in bad faith or working to malign/smear someone in their Wikipedia article, this is not the place to do so. Instead, look here: WP:BLPN. If you have other questions about how this works, you can leave a message on my talk page. PS: nice signature :) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - While it's unclear if any one of her pursuits would pass any of the more specific notability criteria, I'm seeing more than enough sources in total to support passing GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I hope this article will get some attention from editors who are experienced in the evaluation of Russian sources and topics; to my less-experienced eye, some of the sources look a bit peculiar, and the article has had some history of aggressive back-and-forth editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete It looks like most of the sources are self-publsihed by the subject of the biography. That may comply with the letter of WP:BLPSELFPUB, but it doesn't make the person notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz -- (Personal attack removed) There are only three self-published sources in the list of 28 references, and this references were not inserted by me, sophiedookh, the author of the article. User talk:sophiedookh 4:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• • ? Out of 28 references there were only three self-published sources, which were removed. More references were added to make it 54 references, including references to major publications in respectable academic journals on Irene Caesar: "Sapiens", the Journal of the Miguel Hernandez University, "The Dialogue of Arts" (official journal of the Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, which published Arthur Danto's article on Irene Caesar" (2012), "Maintenant: Dada Journal, the New Yorker Magazine, The Brooklyn Rail, and others.
    • Please refer to the history of editing of this article. The relevant material was repeatedly erased from the article, while this material had information supporting Caesar's notability, and referenced to reliable reputable secondary sources. Please refer to Irene Caesar's Data published on the site of the Association of Art Critics of Russia: http://www.ais-aica.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2937:2012-08-15-17-35-50&catid=28&Itemid=53

This data has the list of her publications, exhibitions, art collections, lectures, TV, Radio and Film coverage, including major Russian TV stations, and such American TV stations as NTV, and RTV. She was invited to give Public lectures at the leading Universities of the world, like the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Moscow University, Miguel Hernandez University. She was published in the New Yorker Magazine, by the St. Petersburg University Press, Ivan Fedorov Publishing House (the leading State Publishing House in Russian in the 90's), and Lambert Publishing House: http://www.amazon.com/SHOULD-UNHAPPY-ABOUT-HAPPINESS-ARISTOTLE/dp/3838344995/ref=sr_1_2/189-8202992-9917308?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413091326&sr=1-2. Scholars of the Turin University, Columbia University and the University of the South analysed her work in their monographs on art: http://books.google.com/books?id=ye9LAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=tiziana+andina+irene+caesar&source=bl&ots=VUBgbsNh-l&sig=cOlMlJlsft2N4yHnHuKQNCz4hw8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ahA6VJ69IsKK8QGUzYD4CQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tiziana%20andina%20irene%20caesar&f=false Arthur Danto, the leading Anglo-American art critic and philosopher wrote an article on Caesar for the major art magazine in Russia -- "The Dialogue of Arts" of the Museum of Modern Art in Moscow. Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others. Here is what Arthur Danto tells about Irene Caesar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK1cSrzBrGY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.24.30.184 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I tried, but I couldn't scrape together enough reliable sources to give me reason to believe she passes the GNG or the artist guidelines. I don't see major expositions or endowed chairs or important fellowships, or even reviews published in reliable sources--except for one from The Brooklyn Rail, which I added to the article. The article is problematized from both sides--no, from three sides: one editor seems to wish to promote the subject but fails to add reliable sources (note the many, many incomplete notes with missing bibliographic information, the video links, the blogs, etc.), and another appears intent on poisoning the well by focusing--unduly--on the subject's own blog, which features some rather ridiculous conspiracy theories. But that has little to do with her art and isn't remarked on by anyone but herself, and thus should be excluded; unfortunately it is likely to attract editors with a distaste for distasteful material who could just vote "delete" just to get rid of her. And the subject herself is of course the third side: hard to imagine someone less sympathetic than a person who claims that the ISIS beheading videos were photoshopped by Obama, or whatever; never mind the, ahem, racial theorizing, the phrase I use instead of a BLP violation.

  Anyway, I just can't find the material to prove her notable, and have no option but to vote "delete". Drmies (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • ? It looks like, if you analyse the history of editing this article, that the author of the article did not insert the references to Caesa'r blog, which are not relevant here. Somebody else inserted this reference without realising the nature of Caesar's work. Editors should take into consideration that Caesar is a conceptual artist and defines her art as absurdism and ideological provocations. For editors to become critics of Caesar's absurdism is beyond the scope of wikipedia, as it seems.
• Delete per Drmies. I don't see notability given the sources. Its not enough to have"sources". Sources themselves have to indicate notability. (Littleolive oil (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC))
• Keep With today's large expansion of the article, I believe there are enough sources discussing Caesar and her work to make her notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) (x3) - Drmies - I'm confused about the sourcing problem. Disregarding the list of sources cited, even, and just doing a quick search it seems like I've found an awful lot. She's into self-promotion, that's for sure, but there's not a problem finding sources that cover her in depth that aren't self-published. Just going down the list that she put together herself at her website, it's clear [to me] that any sense of her not being notable would be due to the language barrier.
  • It looks like she's had her work shown at some well-known Russian and American galleries (Moscow's Museum of Modern Art, Moscow State Institution of Culture, Chelsea Art Museum, Columbia Univesity)
  • nominated and interviewed for The LomonosovArt prize (though I don't know what that confers)
  • had a number of television outlets cover or interview her (RTV, NTV-America, some documentary about her that aired on a couple Russian TV stations, a few interviews on St. Petersburg TV, etc.)
  • has enough credibility to interview big names in Russian museums
  • press about her: Lady Boss (magazine), review Haberarts (eh), The Birch (eh), Svoboda interview, RussianMind, Brooklyn Rail, Portal Credo, Voices of America, RUNYweb...
  • Some of these sources are so-so, but even a google translate will show they're substantial/in depth -- and these are just the flattering ones she links on her website. Something tells me that having achieved a certain level of success, when considering some of her opinions, there's probably some negative press out there too. She seems to easily pass the bar for GNG/BIO. Oh, also, while it's a primary source, of course, she's been published by The New Yorker and given talks at some prestigious universities. There are big problems with the article and its most active editors seem to have some POV issues, but I don't think it should be deleted. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Rhododendrites, I can only go on what I know, and it ain't Russian. It is possible that Lady Boss is a legit journal (but you're linking to a likely copyvio and you should consider removing it). I've already added the Brooklyn Rail thing and commented on it (yesterday). Haberarts--who is John Haber? This is someone's web site and there is no indication it's reliable or worth noting. The Birch is an undergraduate journal, and those are typically out. Russian Minds is a blog--and I find nothing more about them than "RussianMind is the part of Russian Media Solutions", so I have no idea what their reliability or editorial policy is. What is "http://www.portal-credo.ru"? What is "svoboda.org"? Whatever they are, they don't look like reliable publications. So while I appreciate the effort, I'm not convinced (except maybe by the Lady Boss thing, which looks to be something). As for being interviewed in various media or speaking somewhere--yes, one can gather that this means she means something, but it's hardly as strong as printed information about the person in reliable media. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • User:Drmies It looks like "Russian Mind" is not less reputable than "Brooklyn Rail". John Haber is a well-known art critic in New York, working for the Oxford University Press. "svoboda.org" is a major American Radio Station "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)", a broadcasting organization that provides news and information which broadcasts in 28 languages to 21 countries with corporate offices in Washington, D.C, created through the efforts of the National Committee for a Free Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty Caesar also gave interview to the "Voice of America" --the official external broadcast institution of the United States federal government.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America

Here is the link to Caesar's interview for the "Voice of America": http://www.golos-ameriki.ru/content/irina-ceasar-2011-09-26-130570188/245727.html

Hat sock comments. Dreadstar ☥ 20:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - I have made a major edit for this article, based on thorough additional research. The notability is now clearly shown. The major appearances on the state-level TV, Radio, in major museum collections and museum exhibitions are demonstrated, as well as numerous references from highly respectable sources, such as Academic monographs and articles, which include major art critics and philosophers of the world. No self-published material. No doubtful philosophical speculations. There are no video links, and any links to any blogs. --— Exclusive analysis55 talk \\ 8:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Note: Drmies writes: "the judith chapter gives caesar a sentence and a half, but it's a self-published book". Both of these claims are not true. Answer: I gave an exact citation from the source, which is a paper in the academic journal on Biblical studies. Also, Drmies writes: "I don't see major expositions". Answer: Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others. --— Exclusive analysis55 talk \\ 8:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC) the judith chapter gives caesar a sentence and a half, but it's a self-published book". Both of these claims are not true. Answer: I gave an exact citation from the source, which is a paper in the academic journal on Biblical studies. Also, Drmies writes: "I don't see major expositions". Answer: Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others Note: Littleolive oil writes: "Its not enough to have "sources". Sources themselves have to indicate notability." Answer: The sources include major state TV programs, and the assessment of Irene Caesar contribution to culture by Arthur Danto, the most celebrated art critic and philosopher, world celebrity, and by quite a few university professors from the leading Universities in the world. --— Exclusive analysis55 talk \\ 8:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC) In regards the Judith chapter here is the exact citation. In her monograph, published in the in the Journal on Biblical Studies, Prof. Helen Efthimiadis-Keith, the reputable professor of the University of the South, compared Caesar's interpretation of Judith to the interpretation by Botticelli, Donatello, Giorgione, Cranach the Elder, Caravaggio, Andrea Mantegna, and Gustav Climpt, and concluded: "No other image of Judith expresses the fear of the woman’s castrating sexual potential quite as well as Irene Caesar’s 1996 ink drawing (Plate 2),3 Judith with the Head of Holofernes." She continued: "Judith ‘usurps’ the male role (Dundes 1975:29) and so the male authority and prescription of what woman should be that she is both saint and murdering seductress, chaste, spiritual and carnal. It is also for this reason that she poses such a great threat to the male psyche, which baulks at the thought of a woman so powerful that she can easily beguile a powerful general and cut off his head. The head, being symbolic of the penal head, then conjures up images of the dreaded castration and concomitant loss of power, life and vitality. This element is clearly depicted in Irene Caesar’s drawing.... The woman kills the man with her overpowering sexuality – note how the woman’s legs and hair surround the man in vulva formation – thus castrating him and subverting his authority, for it is she who is in control, not he." ? Please refer to the history of editing of this article. The relevant material was repeatedly erased from the article, while this material had information supporting Caesar's notability, and referenced to reliable reputable secondary sources. Please refer to Irene Caesar's Data published on the site of the Association of Art Critics of Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irene_Caesar This data has the list of her publications, exhibitions, art collections, lectures, TV, Radio and Film coverage, including major Russian TV stations, and such American TV stations as NTV, and RTV. She was invited to give Public lectures at the leading Universities of the world, like the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Moscow University, Miguel Hernandez University. She was published in the New Yorker Magazine, by the St. Petersburg University Press, Ivan Fedorov Publishing House (the leading State Publishing House in Russian in the 90's), and Lambert Publishing House: http://www.amazon.com/SHOULD-UNHAPPY-ABOUT-HAPPINESS-ARISTOTLE/dp/3838344995/ref=sr_1_2/189-8202992-9917308?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413091326&sr=1-2. Scholars of the Turin University, Columbia University and the University of the South analysed her work in their monographs on art: http://books.google.com/books?id=ye9LAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=tiziana+andina+irene+caesar&source=bl&ots=VUBgbsNh-l&sig=cOlMlJlsft2N4yHnHuKQNCz4hw8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ahA6VJ69IsKK8QGUzYD4CQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tiziana%20andina%20irene%20caesar&f=false Arthur Danto, the leading Anglo-American art critic and philosopher wrote an article on Caesar for the major art magazine in Russia -- "The Dialogue of Arts" of the Museum of Modern Art in Moscow. Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others. Here is what Arthur Danto tells about Irene Caesar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK1cSrzBrGY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.24.30.184 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Like Drmies above, I also could not find enough material in reliable independent secondary sources to justify writing an article, and none of that indicated that the subject was in any way notable in accordance with any of our guidelines. We need a lot more meat than this to justify an article. I don't see anything saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete there's nothing in the english-language sources to support notability and none of the Russian language sources appear to be on line, but I note a conspicuous lack of a ru.wiki article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ? I found it quite easy to find Russian sources with a basic google search, and even linked to a few above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete — fails WP:N, WP:PROF, WP:ARTIST, as coverage, if verifiable, doesn't seem to be significant and substantial across numerous sources anyway. --slakr^\ talk / 10:51, 14 October 2014 (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.