Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (5th 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 20:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources indicating that this person is notable in any way. One of the previous AfDs was closed "delete" but for some reason that was not actioned.

comment It was deleted in Jan 2011, but then recreated in March. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. It has no more reliable sources than it did before. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(weak) delete - she does not appear to meet WP:SCHOLAR and there is little, if any, content about her. Her "out there" statements get quoted a bit, but probably just because they are so "out there". No one seems to have even taken them seriously enough to comment on how screwy they are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF with a h-index of 2. No nontrivial information found in reliable sources. -- 101.119.14.134 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subjects fails WP:GNG since none of the sources give any significant coverage to Leuren Moret. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For this new deletion attempt I would expect that some serious lack of judgment is exposed in !voting or closing the previous keep AfD. Notable per GNG, WP:PROF or WP:Scholar is not applicable, she's an activist. --Pgallert (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where exactly is the significant coverage by reliable third party sources about the subject? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are our notability guidelines not applicable to "activists"? And given the history of the different AfDs, I'm not inclined to attach too much value to them. --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is applicable, PROF is not. Because she is not teaching at a university. In my view she passes GNG per 650 hits on GBooks, arguments from the previous AfD, multiple articles on her in a national newspaper. --Pgallert (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not indication of notability. which specifically is the significant coverage by a reliable source about her? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on my other two arguments? Because, which of the Google books hits are relevant, is mentioned in the 4th nomination. On the contrary, given that there are so many indications of passing GNG, I would have expected the nominator (yes, I know that is not you) to tell us why that is not relevant. --18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"indications" of meeting GNG are as worthless as a spec of sand in the Sahara. You are the person claiming that significant coverage in reliable sources exists, and you must actually produce the significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Pgallert: You are right, she contributed to Japan Times, and other newspapers, such as Tehran Times, published multiple articles on her (the links are gone but I can remember that from my previous research). She is also quoted in multiple books, but I'm afraid she doesn't represent the "right opinion" and I guess that's why people want to delete the article so fervently. G-News Archives are defunct now so it will be easier to delete it. Btw, Tehran Times is a national newspaper but could it be considered a reliable source from the Western/Wikipedian point of view?? Major Russian newspapers often present a very different point than Western media but it doesn't appear in our articles. We refer to events unisono with BBC, the NYT and other "reliable" media (who themselves often refer to events in unison and parrot themselves) but it doesn't mean that there's no different point of view - good or wrong. We just don't accept things that are fringe from our point of view. But I'm sorry for digressing. The article is well written and informative and it is sought after by many readers. I don't see any benefits in deletion. To be fair, people commenting on this should read also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Leuren_Moret. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Painstaking collection of passing mentions and primary sources does not make for notability. bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Despite Pgallert's claims, I was unable to corroborate multiple articles, or even one article on her in the national newspaper, that Pgallert mentioned, the Tehran Times. I checked. This BLP cites her under the following URL http://old.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=165352, but I can find no evidence of it existing now. Why do I mention this? Because the Wikipedia article on Tehran Times ALSO contains the following, "The paper lauded American Leuren Moret's efforts on radiation as a "crusade"" yet the same invalid URL is given as a source! --FeralOink (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Link rot. I can vouch that the link was active at some time in the past, and that it supported the statements. That it is no longer working is not a reason to remove or discount that reference. --Pgallert (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that in principle a dead link should not be removed (because the problem may be transient or someone might be able to figure out the new URL, etc). However, it does pose a problem of verifiability, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Randykitty, this is not an issue of link rot. There is one dead link. That is all that we have to demonstrate verifiability. I am merely requesting a substitute. Please, do not take offense at my tone toward you? Your comments are very reasonable, and it is challenging for me to find the right voice online, as I am high-spirited.--FeralOink (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- your comment above linking to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Leuren_Moret shows the pretty wide consensus of non notability -so i am not sure how you come to your position? it seems that you are basing it on a theory that mainstream media are in a cabal to suppress information and that we must therefore elevate non reliable sources - which really goes against fundamental Wikipedia policies such as WP:VALID. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the wikilink because I like to see all cards on the table. Cabal to suppress information? No, but media in different parts of the world present different interpretations. Mrs. Moret's work (which might be considered fringe in the US) was presented in national newspapers in other countries, she is frequently quoted in multiple books. To me, it is enough to say 'keep' the article as it is, and there's also some room for expansion. It isn't enough for you or maybe for others ... well, I can live with that. But I can say what I think, this is an open discussion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický I was thinking that too, regarding whether Tehran Times is considered acceptable as a source. There are three major online media, English language news sources in Iran. IR Press TV, FARS and one other, whose name I don't recall. I prefer FARS. However, Tehran Times does have decent economic commentary e.g. Sanctions therapy now: Iran's oil-addicted economy needs rehab. That was not blindly aligned with the social nor political agendas of the ruling theocratic regime of Iran, despite the fact that the Wikipedia article says that the Tehran Times "is the voice of the Islamic Revolution and the oppressed people in the world..." and "is run... by the MNA, an outlet for the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (Iran)". I spent some time getting acquainted with Tehran Times, due to this Article For Deletion submission. I think that Iran has enough to contend with, without suffering reputational harm due to Wikipedia using Iranian news media, the very voice of the oppressed people in the world, to give Moret falsely-attributed legitimacy. Iran is very well-informed about nuclear energy, you know! Stuxnet expired on 24 June 2012, and Iran announced yesterday that they are manufacturing a new line of centrifuges for their nuclear power plants, or for some sort of uranium enrichment or other. The subject of this article is anti-science, anti-nuclear energy. I seriously doubt that an outlet for the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran would be praising an American woman who claims that neutron bombs cause diabetes and were used to destroy the World Trade Centers. Neutron bombs are designed to kill people and leave property entirely intact. More relevant to Wikipedia world best practices: I am stunned that so many, well, maybe one or two, are claiming that because you recollect that there were news articles about the subject of this article, then it must be so, thus the article should not be deleted. i.e. "I can vouch that the link was active at some time in the past, and that it supported the statements. That it is no longer working is not a reason to remove or discount that reference." per Pgallert. I would like to draw more attention to this, have others weigh in, as it could have vast implications for Wikipedia under stare decisis. In other words,

IF a Wikipedia editor claims to remember a news article about something or someone THEN that is sufficient, and no news article need actually exist.

Unless such time as that is true, one must cite sources! --FeralOink (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2013 (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.