Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberatum

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberatum[edit]

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

Redirected to the Pablo Ganguli article, but this has been reverted. Undoubtedly Ganguli gets quite a bit of press, but Liberatum doesn't (for example, the cited Vogue article mentions it, in connection with Ganguli). Considering this is an alleged organisation active during the height of the internet age, I can find nothing of substance about it that is independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sionk, I have as requested by you looked up over 35 sights and reliable sources which all mention Liberatum as a cultural organisation in its own right.

I have nothing to do with this except I follow what the organisation, and see what it has achieved in England itis phenomenal worthy of mention more than a lot of things on Wikipedia that are kept. Vogue is the best and most reliable source of information other than The Times, Financial Times and The Daily Mail. It is considered the bible of the contemporary upmarket ideas. Liberatum works independently from Ganguli as I know for a fact that he employs people to do events all over the world if you research it you will find that. I think you could be making a mistake if you delete it I have probably made mistakes writing this Cricket500 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some background check, it seems Sionk has been editing Liberatum related pages and the company's founder for a couple of years or so. Also, what is most perplexing is the sudden urge to nominate the page for deletion even though the page has been on for almost ten years with clearly reliable and credible sources that are cited. The organisation seems to have been operating in many countries and newspapers of different countries all have reported its activities. One wonders: was Sionk personally linked to the company and therefore holds some motive? or does Sionk suddenly no longer recognises the veracity of serious and credible organisations, newspapers, companies and publications all reporting on the company's activities and existence? Kamilakook (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware that I've been editing Liberatum related pages for several years. My first edit of this page, in fact, was in April. I came across it when a new editor added a link to Liberatum from the Amanda Eliasch article. When I redirected Liberatum, and when I nominated it for deletion, there were only two sources cited - one is an article from Vogue which simply says "reception and dinner hosted by Indian impresario Pablo Ganguli, the founder of the global cultural diplomacy forum, Liberatum", the other is a company website (not a reliable journalistic source). Even Cricket500 (above) agrees that Liberatum only gets passing mentions in newspapers. Wikipedia's notability guidelines, WP:GNG, requires significant coverage of the subject, not passing mentions in relation to something/somebody else. Is there any in-depth news coverage about Liberatum you can provide? Sionk (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to you Sionk. The evidence shows, through, reliable sources cited that Liberatum has been significantly mentioned and covered by leading newspapers in many countries. You keep mentioning Vogue but what about the other newspapers such as the New York Times and the Independent? Vogue also featured Liberatum in its headline as the main story not just a passing mention. Are we reading the same thing? It seems Liberatum runs programmes, festivals and initiatives with different names in several countries. Just been checking online and reading all about them. I'm surprised you can't see them as they are hard to miss. Wall Street Journal, Guardian, GQ. The list goes on. The BBC reporting an entire programme on Liberatum is not reliable or significant enough for you? Kamilakook (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see you edited Liberatum owned festival pages in 2014. Istancool being one of them. Kamilakook (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the many available sources showing this organization as meeting WP:ORG. Kudos to Kamilakook for his efforts to make this suitable for the project and its readers. And when WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage is lacking, the many many many more-than-trivial coverages of the orginization and its events in multiple reliable sources shows the organization as worthy enough of note for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you google Liberatum support women in their creativity you will see all the projects they do to support them, it's not just glossy events. This is one of many other programmes they do, it would be a pity if they are not included on Wikipedia. I follow them avidly and am truly impressed by their achievements, and opportunity they give to others Merrypinkwoman (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the first time I have voted to keep something. As I said yesterday there are links all over google. I answered User:Sionk and read the article in La Monde which is not a correct reflection of Liberatum's work. It just needs the links on Google attached as relevant citations. I will try to mend the page. It seems a pity to chastise a company who genuinely wants to do good work for others? I say Keep Cricket500 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to stop powerful well connected people from having their companies have pages on Wikipedia. This is not a press agency service. So what this company has lots of press? Why should we only rely on newspaper articles ? Maybe they paid newspaper editors a lot of money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.191.71 (talk • contribs) — 95.21.191.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What on earth are you talking about? If we can't rely on newspapers as credible sources, what other options do you suggest? What are you trying to imply by saying "paid newspapers". This is slander. 81.33.28.244 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)— 81.33.28.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Dear God! It appears to be a legit organization with an incredibly large number of citations. Looks as though some people are out to deliberately remove the article despite credible sources and links from reputable newspapers. 81.33.28.244 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — 81.33.28.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is becoming absurd? Yesterday I was putting citations on an article and the sockpuppet kept deleting them, today somebody who is trying to do something in life is being deleted? I have only been on Wikipedia for two weeks yet there is more drama about keeping people who are doing good things for women than stopping people from deliberately adding puff to their pages. Checked Liberatum again, there are a number of videos on culture, Women have benefited from the organisations support. This is not my world I am into Cricket and roses but I do not like to see destruction of useful data. Cricket500 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote 'keep'. Simply because it clearly seems to be a credible organisation (operating for many years) with credible, reliable citations, sources and links all provided on the page. Films, videos, newspaper articles, programmes, festivals that are all online. I will work on further improving the page and maybe you could all do that too? Kamilakook (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a speedy keep? Please women out there come forward to save one of the most valuable platforms in the world for women speakers and artists. Thegcb (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many available citations showing coverage. But please, people, don't canvass for votes. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2016 (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.