Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Pascotto

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The result was withdrawn; the author has requested the article be deleted via wp:G7. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Pascotto[edit]

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

speedy declined; copy of her online resume WP:N, WP:NOT Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inline cites[edit]

There appear to be none that relate directly to the subect, but rather to the organisation, (TPRF), a subject which has itself been declared non-notable. If none are forthcoming I would pronounce the subject not notable. Rumiton (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If declared non-notable, why do these exist?:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prem_Rawat_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat

Dou9las (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is to the German Wikipedia, which is a completely different thing to this, the English one. Your second is to the English article about Prem Rawat himself. He is definitely notable, even if primarily for his impact on western countries prior to 1980. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News search turns up nothing but self-authored press releases. The article does not meet WP:RS or WP:BIO requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I searched the Proquest newspaper archive and got the same results as Regent of the Seatopians - just press releases. Further, the article, a direct copy of the online resume, doesn't make any assertion of notability. Merely heading a foundation isn't sufficient even if the foundation itself is notable. Finally, the editor who created it says that he "works for and represents" the subject, for what that's worth.[1] Will Beback talk 00:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all above reasons. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton, points taken, was just saying that if notable to German WikiPedia, then it should have a fighting chance to be considered notable on English WP.

Will - my point in mentioning that I work for Ms. Pascotto was that we had permission to use her material on a WP page. However, my purpose for creating the page about her is that I feel her career is notable. There is no commercial or other "ulterior motive" behind creation of the page. I am currently researching material and citations that will satisfy WikiPedia's criteria for General Notability Guidelines and will update my original article and this discussion when I have that information. Dou9las (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between the different language versions of Wikipedia, and this is due to the way each has evolved with different rules, and also to the Wikipedia definition of notability. Notability has nothing to do with whatever great things a person may have done, it stems purely from the amount of notice that has been taken of the subject preferably in the language of the article. This notice is ideally from academic sources, university publications, researchers, etc but can also be from high quality magazines, newspapers and documentaries, sources with a good reputation for fact checking. (BTW, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.) An individual cannot post their own CV and expect it to be accepted as a biography. And whatever you (or I) might feel about the subject's notabilty has no bearing at all. It is all to do with what reputable sources feel, and what they have written. If you think for a moment you will see why this must be the case for an encyclopedia to have any credibility at all. So I say again, if you have reputable sources for the notability of this subject, please post them here. That is the only way to proceed. I hope this has helped. Rumiton (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton - thank you for the additional information and clarification. Also, as a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor, I did not realize that working for Linda created a conflict of interest with respect to the terms and conditions of publishing pages here.

I have deleted the contents of the article, however I am unsure if there is a formal procedure for completely deleting the associated page created. Please advise. Dou9las (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added the code snippets for "delete" and "delete | reason" to the top of the article. Please advise if I need to take further action to facilitate deleting this page. Dou9las (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2011 (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.