Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Malouf

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. Nakon 03:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Malouf[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable dentist. Claims to be a "society dentist" and ,indeed, almost all the reference deal with his rather minor scoiety exploits and his non notable art collections. e.g "r. Malouf is consistently named among the best-dressed gentlemen in San Francisco society" DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what a society dentist is. He seems to fail all criteria here for notability, and the article is an advert with references. There is little meat in the references and I doubt that it could be improved to meet our needs. Fiddle Faddle 09:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep most BLPs could be cleaned up, including this one, however we appear to be outright ignoring WP:GNG here. Whether or not you care about what he has done which received major coverage doesn't matter. The point is that he has received in-depth news coverage over many years. Full features about him appear at citations one, three, and four. We can remove the term "society" from the phrase "society dentist" and I am certain we all know what a dentist is. It is truly ridiculous to read full articles about someone in the citations and deny GNG. I will attempt to cut out items that might be seen as advert-like as per Timtrent. 208.65.22.203 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a crack at it now; I would appreciate any thoughts on the revised article. There really was a lot of promotional phrasing to gut, that is definitely true. Still, this piece passes GNG, and I feel my edits do show that the piece is definitely not irreversibly promotional. 208.65.22.203 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This person is a local figure who is a minor philanthropists. Not everyone who gets mentioned in a newspaper is notable. Malouf is not at all notable.02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep and stubify Not much to argue with above, I do see some original research in here where sources should be removed (that would be my main concern I guess). I am not sure I would advocate deletion though. Not particularly convinced either way, I'd almost like to just put this as a Comment rather than a firm vote. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 05:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be easier to judge this if it weren't filled with ref-spam. Most of the links are posts or articles that include his name as donor, and that's all. Others are fashion statements. Neither speak to notability. Being rich and dressing for success is not enough to support an article in Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 23:53, 26 April 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) 01:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My only work here has been on this page when I noted an inaccurate change to the details of Malouf's collections. I agree there were issues with the page and that many of them have been addressed since the start of this debate. The nominator had two claims: that this is a "promotional article" and that Malouf's "exploits" are "non-notable". The first claim no longer exists at this point after recent edits. The second claim is inconclusive in this debate with points on both sides. This second claim also belies a bias against the kinds of activities that Malouf partakes in, which we can see in the nominator's and delete votes' use of inflammatory language. While I do not have as substantial a grasp of Wikipedia's ins and outs as some of the above votes I feel that the following may be something that applies here: Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Factovermyth (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the coverage to establish notability and meets no clearly set out guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 6 May 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.