Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Despite the vehement defence from several SPAs, the "delete" !votes are more firmly policy-based. No convincing sources meeting any notability guideline have been brought forward. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lois de Menil[edit]

Lois de Menil (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)

Let's review the sources presented:

All right, so I think it's pretty clear none of this material justifies a separate article - it's either not independent or trivial. Which leaves us with this, a long, glossy Vanity Fair piece about the tribulations of the Dia Foundation. Here, the subject does rack up more mentions, but I would submit none of them remotely indicate encyclopedic notability. They're almost a parody of the idle rich:




That's all very interesting, I'm sure, but it hardly seems notable, as defined by WP:BASIC. At best, again, this could be mentioned in the context of the Dia Foundation, but as far as standalone notability for this individual is concerned, that simply is not apparent.

Note: this was previously deleted as part of another discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you for taking the time to review my entry on Lois de Menil in such detail. I am continuing to edit it and I would like to contest the proposed deletion because of recent changes. In response to the critiques, I have supplied further references from Cambodian sources, as well as sources relating to her work in Romania, both of which are more recent and relevant contributions than her time at DIA, though the former received greater visibility in English language news sources. The Center for Khmer Studies which Dr. de Menil contributed to founding, constitutes the only research library in Cambodia outside of Phnom Penh. I struggle to see how that is not a notable contribution to education. I am open to all constructive criticism of this piece and welcome your response. Vwikiv (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv — Vwikiv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello Biruitorul,

I take your point about the sources including "non-independent" publications and not being of the quality you would hope for in a wikipedia bio. There is an inherent challenge, however, in holding up notability in Cambodia to the same standards as in the US, since the number of English language publications about Camboodia -- particularly about library scholarship -- are minimal. That is partly a product of the particular history of Cambodia, which destroyed most of the educational infrastructure in the late 1970s. I'm not sure where this leaves us, but I would contend that the article demonstrates enough evidence to show that Lois de Menil really did found the Center for Khmer Studies, and that the legacy of that institution in terms of research infrastructure and cataloguing the National Museum constitutes notability.

Please also note that I corrected the reference to the National Museum Catalogue so that it no longer links to google. Thanks for spotting that.

As before, I appreciate the time you are putting into this and other wiki entries on a volunteer basis. Vwikiv (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. It has a total of 16 sources as I write this comment and it is a coherent and interesting article. With regard to it been non-notable I disagree also. By virtue of the fact that 16 sources can be found it is notable. The subject matter is notable in any case. The article does not qualify for deletion. Keep Thank you Trout71 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) — Trout71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Just a note that this account is four days old, and this is the first AfD in which the user has participated. And that, "hey look, sources!" is not a valid argument - those sources need to be analyzed for relevance. - Biruitorul Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. The subject is a published author, has held prominent positions, and has been influential in several notable organizations: Dia, World Monuments Funds, National Gallery of Art, Andy Warhol Museum, Center for Khmer Studies - all of which have Wikipedia entries and are noteworthy, and the last of which she founded. Also, since the original deletion request, more citations have been added. Biruitorul, in both this request for deletion, and the related request for deletion of Georges de Menil entry, you take issue with the subjects' finances. I don't see how this is relevant. Keep Thank you --Bdemenil (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's note the obvious conflict of interest here — we don't know the identity of User:Bdemenil, but we do know he wrote a now-deleted article on Benjamin de Menil, the son of Lois de Menil. Participants can draw their own conclusions from that.
    • Let's also note that said user added this link to the "Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press"; needless to say, that's not an acceptable source, per WP:SPS. Truly, this article and a few related ones are turning into a walled garden. - Biruitorul Talk 01:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Biruitorul, in this discussion you have a pattern of attacking the person rather than his or her argument. I do not list myself as a source. Nor is it necessary for my opinion to have weight. But a factually based argument should be addressed. It is a fact for instance that this page now contains many independent sources. It seems a stretch to dismiss them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.35.103 (talk)

OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. I have been a longtime/frequent user of Wikipedia, and I only registered today so that I can oppose the proposition to delete the page related to Lois de Menil. That proposition really surprises me. I am a Cambodian national, and I am working for an independent Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Cambodia since 2007. I know very well CKS, the organisation for which Mrs De Menil serves as a president. I can testify on 2 points. 1/ CKS is a very well known and reputable organisation, from an academic and from an intellectual perspective. It achieves good results, it generates high level studies and knowledge that is shared with Cambodian scholars and it has very strong credentials in the country, and has collaborated with international organisations like the United Nations, with Cambodian Universities, and with International NGOs. CKS has been operating for many years in Cambodia, brought in the country high level international researchers, academics, experts and professors which are providing lot of insights and knowledge related to Cambodia's history and culture; the organisation's reputation and quality are excellent. Mrs De Menil is a well known, well respected professional, and the role she played in supporting Cambodia's cultural preservation and history is very important. Mrs De Menil has been instrumental in ensuring CKS credibility and quality. I understand Wikipedia policy to ensure quality of all references and information that are posted on the website. It is a commendable standard. Therefore, please allow me to ask you to keep the page online and accessible to the public so that those improvements can be made. I am not sure that I agree with the nature and the form of some of the above criticism made by Biruitorul, but I can see that somebody is already working to address the comments that have been made. I am sure constructive improvements can be made, so that future Wikipedia's readers remain well informed. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs) — Khmer15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Biruitorul: In response to Biruitorul's allusion to a walled garden, the Lois de Menil entry is referenced by two wiki articles (Dia Art Foundation and Center for Khmer Studies) that have nothing to do with Benjamin de Menil, nor does her entry mention him. Furthermore, the entry links to 29 other wiki articles. This does not seem to fit the definition of a walled garden. 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]
Striking second comment signed by the same user, Vwikiv. Vwikiv: please only express your opinion once here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator - the participants on this AfD thus far have been User:Vwikiv (edits only articles related to the de Menil family), Trout71 (new account, first AfD edit here), Bdemenil (probably the article subject's son, first AfD edit here), Khmer15 (single-purpose account) and 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (likewise). - Biruitorul Talk 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator - The nature of the participants, how old or new their accounts are, do not change anything to the accuracy of the facts and the reliability of the new information that is presented. The quality and the relevance of many of the criticisms formulated by User Biruitorul makes me question the impartiality and the objectivity of that person, and therefore the validity of the feedback. The person seems to have engaged in a personal "vendetta" against the De Menil family. Some of the assumptions formulated by Biruitorul are borderline calumnious and biased. I quote: Press release, not an independent source, meeting someone is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC). User Biruitorul needs to be much more accurate with his feedback, better informed, and less disrespectful. Not an independent source? I disagree. In addition, the fact that Mrs De Menil has met with the King of Cambodia, is a significant event, that fully proves notability of Mrs De Menil. King Sihamoni is not "someone', as suggested, but he is Head of State of Cambodia, and a symbolic and well respected public figure for all Cambodians, and for many foreigners too. Being invited and received by the King of Cambodia in his residence is not a common fact, and it is to say the least a very significant event. As a Cambodian I would please ask you to be culturally more sensitive. I am not contesting the fact that some of the above mentioned references can be improved. But please, let's stay objective and impartial here. And let's have as a shared goal to improve the quality of the information that is presented on Wikipedia. Please let's not enter into any personal "vendetta", specifically when there is no ground for it. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability not established. Non-independent press release is not WP:RELIABLE and therefore cannot be used as a source to establish notability. I would like to note that sources do not have to be in English to be used, but that they also can't be self-published. The article is on de Menil, not CKS, so the effectiveness of the organization doesn't matter. Finally, I would like to remind everyone in this discussion of the WP:COI policy; don't edit things that you have a connection to. I would argue that the wiki-age of the participants does matter, as Trout71's argument showed no knowledge of the relevant policy. Notability is not transferrable, and I assume the king meets dozens on a daily basis. Origamiteⓣⓒ 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. Note to the Editor. Dear Sir, My name is Solinn Lim and i am a Cambodian working in international development field in Asia based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. I came across the proposed deletion of Ms. de Menil's profile and I would like to share with you my experience. I met her once in Cambodia when she was visiting a local orphanage called Children’s Peaceful Home in Srer Ampil locality. She introduced her friends who were potential donors to the founder's orphanage, and then went on to visit a group of local authority who managed a small museum in the middle of nowhere (about 10 mins or so from the orphanage). I was a guest of the orphanage's founder and my interest was to visit the museum because i heard about this amazing project trying to educate and stop local farmers from looting priceless artifacts of thousands years of age and sell them to black markets in exchange for a bag of rice. Such looting happens every day and my worst nightmare as you can imagine is that nothing would be left for my children's generation. In my 15 years of professional experience in programme development in Asia, i can humbly share with you, that funding for area such as cultural preservation in Cambodia has diminished, and we rely mainly on private funding such as that of Ms. de Menil's. A local expert whom i know very well explained to me how important it was that someone like Ms. de Menil chose to focus on cultural preservation adn development work. Let me be clear that the funding alone would not have been sufficient. Her negotiation skills and acute political awareness were so essential for her project to succeed in the area that is full of powerful business interest such as this. At a seminar I attended on digitalizing the entire catalogue of the National Museum i got a good glimpse of the complexity - just on the technical level alone they had to deal with 3 languages that CAmbodia uses: Khmer, French and English. Let me tell you how important the work of Madame de Menil to Cambodians. As a nation, we went through a century of colonization and the recent murderous genocide accounted for the death of 25% of our population. As the UN's hybrid Khmer Rouge/genocide trial is still on going, we Cambodians are confused of our history, fearful of living our present, and not ready for our future. We are in limbo. We need to preserve and rediscover our past, our once glorious ancient civilization in Southeast Asia, through the work of Ms. de Menil that would help us understand where we came from. Such preservation and education are so important because it would help our fragile nation to regain our confidence, overcome sufferings from centuries of humiliations, rebuild our national identity, and pass on the pride to our next generations. I can go on and on about Ms. De Menil and especially about the CKS's achievement since i am a regular participants of their valuable research seminars. I can provide you more references to the work of the CKS and Ms. de Menil as i have learned a lot about her from local media. I hope this humble testimony would help you reconsider to keep this profile on Wikipedia. Please let me knwo if i could be of service to Wikipedia in regards to the case of Ms. de Menil. Please accept my apologies for the typos as i am writing to you on my mobile. Sincerely, Solinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengkiim (talk • contribs) — Sengkiim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete While some members of this family are undoubtedly notable, notability is not inherited. None of the reliable sources present in the article are actually about the subject or evidence any level of in-depth coverage, and it's easy to spot a vanity bio propped up with citations to things that the subject is associated with in some way. The SPA exclusively involved in editing these articles and the SPAs "voting" here with claims of vendettas and whatnot quite frankly smell of paid editing as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator - the same arguments are repeated again and again from the pro-deletion users, while the side that opposes deletion brings new testimonies into the picture. Mrs Lois de Menil has an established proven track record of actions and results. She legitimately deserves a page in Wikipedia. Many professionals that have met her and that collaborated with her can testify, with example and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs)

Stricken because you only get one vote. Origamiteⓣⓒ 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator -Please allow time so that Mrs De Menil profile can be improved, and edited. The feedback on what needs to be changed is clear. It is just a matter of time before independent sources are found that can support her achievements and her contributions. Please also note that the pro-deletion users are applying double standard, lecturing others on high standards that needs to be respected, while they are feeling comfortable making emotional judgement about others that are groundless fantasies e.g. FreeRangeFrog assumptions. Their action and words reinforce my point: what they are looking for is simply to take down the page, and not to contribute objectively to improve the page quality and accuracy, and therefore to contribute to improve with impartiality the quality of wikipedia, to a larger extent. Quality of content in Wikipedia is the goal. I am not interested in blindly speculating on who is who, and who is doing what. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15[reply]

Note to the administrator - While supporting to keep the article so that modification can be made to improve compliance with WIkipedia policies and regulation, specific parts of the text and selected references that are in contradiction with those policies and regulation can be easily improved. However, seeking better alignment with important principles of neutral point of view and of verifiability, I would like to seek guidance and clarifications as per why the Phnom Penh Post article or the official Website of King Sihamoni are not qualified by the pro deletion as fitting with those 2 principles. Could you please provide clear example and advice as per what criteria you use to define neutral, and verifiability? That would be very useful. Many thanks in advance for your support. 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.185 (talk)

  • Delete I searched Newspapers.com and Highbeam for any articles that might establish notability. I can't find any. I'll remind newer participants that creating new accounts to "vote" in this AfD is obvious to experienced editors and only increases the likelihood that the article will be deleted. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator There are two facts that I will now submit. The first is that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of notability. It has succeeded in indicating it's notability. The sources aren't the best but it is sourced. In response to User:I am One of Manys comment I am not in anyway associated with the other voters as can be checked. I don't think we even live in the same continent. I don't appreciate unfounded accusations. In any case, such a comment seems to suggest that you have run out of arguments for the deletion of this article. The comment made by User:Biruitorul regarding the age of my account should not have been mentioned as it is both irrelevant and an attempt to discredit my view without actually having to challenge my view. I contest that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of non-notability or for being unsourced. So on what grounds can it be deleted? Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trout71: Sourcing isn't enough; it has to be reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. That's why your account age is a problem; even barring sock puppetry, you clearly don't demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of the relevant policies, and AfD is based off of the quality of the arguments, not number of !votes. There are enough ways to fake a CheckUser result that they're pretty much never run when suggested by a suspected user. Origamiteⓣⓒ 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Origamite: So you are tacitly accusing me of being a sock puppet. I am now a "suspected user". Well that's just bloody wonderful. I am beginning to understand now. If I vote in a way that contradicts your perceived consensus or in this case your preferred consensus because there is no consensus I get labelled a sock puppet. Very easy way to discredit my point of view and turn a vote. If you need proof that I am not a sock them I will withdraw my vote and let you have the article. I am not particularly passionate about it. I found on this page a few days ago and thought it was descent. Which was why I voted and watched the page. Now I am familiar enough with Wikipedia procedure to know that the case for the article being deleted on account of being non-notable is hopeless. It has indicated notability. As for source have a look at source 17. It along with quite a few sources are relevant. The article is well-written, sourced and notable. What reason is there for deletion. There you are. I made my point without accusing you of sock puppetry. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Trout71: I am trying not to accuse you of anything. I was just explaining the typical CheckUser response to one of those requests. The entire point of this discussion is that we disagree on whether the article's well-sourced, and that's fine; AfD is a discussion, not a commandment handed down from on high. I would still like to say that your previous comment doesn't put up much of an argument by policy, but you should't just remove it. If you'd prefer to strike it and put up one that speaks to the reliability of the sources instead of the number that would be good, but that's your decision. I'd like to see what DGG does to the article; I trust his judgement and may change my opinion. I still feel that 17 is a press release and therefore cannot be used to demonstrate notability; also, notability isn't transferred and I assume the King meets with dozens of people every day. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Origamite: I am not requesting anything. Most of the comments on this page regarding my account are wrong. This is not my first ADF discussion and I am not associated with any other voter. I will stick to the reasons I have given. I would also assume that the kings time is limited and so he would only meet with people who are inherently notable in some way. I will let the Admin ascertain the reliability of the sources. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep despite the continuing inappropriate comments above. I've checked her book in WorldCat [1] , and it is in over 400 libraries and ahas been taken seriously by academics, with reviews in American Historical Review, Journal of Common Market Studies, & [[International Affairs (journal) |International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) . One single book at that level does not amount by itself to notability as author or under WP:PROF, but it is nonetheless contributory. Probably her main notability is as sponsor of the Center for Khmer Studies, -- a research institution for which there are quite a few third party references, and which has produced many important publication--I'm adding some to the article on it. I think it would qualify as the leading research center and library in its subject. It is of course open to question to what extend her role with various institutions is only as an interested provider of funding, but this is true of most people who are called philanthropists. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy, no reliable sources found indicating notability. Comment: why are there six 'note to administrator' s above, from five accounts? 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@1Potato2Potato3Potato4: I assume that the others saw what Biruitorul had done and decided to make other argument to the closing admin instead of to the other users in the discussion. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources [2] that cover her because of how rich she is. But her writing and her position at the Center for Khmer Studies are real, verifiable [3] and notable. And her positions as philanthropist/Board Member of such major arts institutions as Dia are real [4]. And as per [[User:DGG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure a New York Times wedding announcement is quotable for anything other than, I suppose, the fact that a wedding took place? Such items are, for obvious reasons, inherently biased in favor of their subjects. While I don't question the subject of this discussion is, in fact, "chairwoman and president of the Center for Khmer Studies", it remains the case that no impartial source mentioning this has turned up. Given that, we have no need to do so either. - Biruitorul Talk 16:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am certain of it. I have no idea whether this is true for any other newspaper wedding announcement on earth. But the NYTimes puts serious sourcing into wedding announcements, fact-checkers phone up and verify Dad's employment. Ask for scans of documents proving that the bridegroom's mother's mother's father really was Prime Minister to the Duchess of Grand Fenwick - that sort of thing. Remember, those wedding announcements are incredibly widely read, getting one in is highly competitive, and they are not working on deadline. The fact-checking is intense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Qualification. I'm only describing the NYTimes wedding announcements in recent decades. not the Oh-So-Social ones of the early 20th century Times. This not at all like an old fashioned or local social section. It is highly competitive to get one in, getting one in is sort of like getting into an elite college. You apply, but the actual announcement is written by Times staff. Errors - rare - get formal corrections. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand that, and like I said, I don't question the veracity of what the announcement states. What I do find questionable, however, is the idea of sourcing this fact ("chairwoman and president of the Center for Khmer Studies") through a wedding announcement. That no other source has commented on this, that it had to wait for her daughter to get married in order to be reported, is indicative of the fact that it simply isn't more than a routine career position, rather than something of encyclopedic notability. - Biruitorul Talk 18:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, that's why I didn't add it to the page, as I usually do when I turn up a RS while editing AFDs on poorly sourced articles. What it did was to establish to my satisfaction that the Center for Khmer Studies is real.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Origamite: To Origamite, Biruitorul and others interested in the question of sources, please note that I have added an additional verifiable secondary source from Khmer National Television. It is a broadcast of the inaugural address made by Lois de Menil on the occasion of the opening of the CKS research library in January 2010. Thank you for taking this into consideration. Vwikiv (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]
That was a useful edit, User:Vwikiv. I hope that you will stick around, it can take a while to get used to Wikipedia's arcane, often legalistic culture, but if you stick to a single identity and add constructive, reliably sourced content you will be welcomed. Remember that content can be added from reliable sources in French, Khmer and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Merge? On second thought, although there is notability here, it might make sense to merge into Center for Khmer Studies. What do you think, User:DGG?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did not wade through the sock-wall-of-text above, but simply took a quick look at the article and sources. Article has plenty of WP:OR and lots of entries in the biblio that are not WP:RS. I thought maybe the Vanity Fair piece would lend some weight, but it is basically about the family with a focus on a few members – Lois is only mentioned, somewhat trivially, a few times. From what I take of the article, it is clear that she is not notable per se. WP:PROF may be a relevant guideline (since she has a PhD and is associated with a research institution) and her book "Who speaks for Europe" is held in ~500 institutions, but we normally set the bar for c1 in this guideline to having at least 2 such "well-held" (noted) publications. Perhaps simply WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Agricola44: Thank you for pointing me to the Wiki policies on original research and reliable sources. I have removed two sources -- the Gutenberg link to the World Encyclopedia entry on the DIA Art Foundation, and the World Monuments Fund description of its work on the Endless Column in Romania. In addition, I removed a double citation to the Vanity Fair article. In addition, I have added two secondary sources to the references about the de Menil Gallery in Groton, one from Harvard News and the other from Boston.com, both reviewing shows. Are there other sources that you would flag as not meeting the reliability criteria? With regards to the original research, the section of the entry that seems most subject to that critique relates to the work in Romania. Unfortunately, Romania does not publish its list of Legion of Honor Recipients online. I can try to see if it is possible to cite a printed publication. If there are any other concrete changes I could make to improve this article, please let me know. Vwikiv (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]
@Vwikiv: Most of the bibliography consists of web ephemera, which are not sources. Rather, those belong in an "external links" section that interested readers can follow off-site. This means that most of the article's content is still original research. The basic problem, as I explained above, is that deMenil is not notable per se (according to any specific guidelines), nor are there enough reliable sources to satisfy general notability. Consequently, improving the article itself is not terribly important. That can be done later, if the article survives. Much better to direct your efforts to finding sources, i.e. pieces that discuss deMenil or her work specifically/substantively and which are published in mainstream sources (books, national periodicals, mainstream news sources e.g. NYT, etc). More web pages, unpublished work, or trivial mentions will not help here. I did a few quick checks but did not find anything obvious. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Agricola44: Thank you for your clear explanation. In keeping with your advice, I have located another source found in the exhibition catalogue of the 1980 Grand Palais art show. I have also added a reference to a UNESCO Plenary meeting at which she spoke. I will continue searching for further mainstream sources. Vwikiv (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]
@Vwikiv: I'm sorry, but I don't think I've conveyed my point. Catalogs and conference programs are likewise not mainstream, widely-available, archival sources. Unfortunately, these do not help the notability case. Even more unfortunate is that I think your efforts confirm the assessments of the "delete" !votes here that there simply aren't any sources that satisfy WP guidelines of reliability and notability that merit keeping this article. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Agricola44: I think UNESCO would disagree with the label "conference program" to describe a fact-finding session for the International Coordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of Angkor. If that doesn't constitute a widely available (it is online after all) archival source, then I have trouble imagining what does. If Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources is so narrow as to only include newspapers, it would be missing a large swath of what constitutes notable research. What then would be the difference between notability and celebrity? Vwikiv (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]
@Vwikiv: OK, so it's a "session program". The point is that this is not an archival source, but rather a document that was produced for a specific event. WP guidelines for sources are not narrow (please have a look), but they do exclude ephemera like this.
  • comment (an editor asked me to revisit) She is a philanthropist and a scholar. A trustee of the World Monuments Fund. Here's an old Andy Warhol photo [5] of Menil in her natural habitat. She is not a publicity hound, and is apparently something of a scholar, but she is notable for paying for stuff like the restoration of WWF (World Monuments Fund) sites and backing the Center for Khmer Studies with her checkbook and her friend' checkbooks. She has not been a publicity seeker (she does not, that is, have Architectural Digest in to do photo spreads of her houses, or [[Vanity Fair] to write up her clothes - that is a choice she makes.) Show-offs are easier to source. Someone - staff apparently - now feels that Wikipedia pages are wanted. This one can be sourced, as a philanthropist, by searching on terms including Lois de Menil + philanthropist; or "Lois de Menil" + WMF + trustee. She has a serious scholarly interest, she has a PhD and likes to be described as Dr. Mendil. But rather than judging her as a scholar , judge her as a philanthropist. Comparable to Leon Levy (another heavy-hitter in archaeological funding) Here they are together on a project.[6] Putting the money in, not putting themselves forward. She is a notable philanthropist. and this article, as I said above, should be a keep because her position as a philanthropist is documentably notable. We just need to cut the hype and source the philanthropy. (Got to run now and set the house up for an Architectural Digest photo shoot,  ;-))E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a case of special pleading right there - you seem to imply that despite her apparent aversion to publicity, we should still consider her notable for her deeds. In theory, yes, provided notability can be demonstrated in the usual way - that is, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Unfortunately, it hasn't been; all we have is, to quote Agricola44's memorable phrase, "web ephemera". Similarly, any claims to notability as a scholar must pass the WP:PROF test - again, we have no indication of that, either.
    • As for the rest ("staff apparently now feels that Wikipedia pages are wanted"), last I checked, it's AfD participants who decide on the notability of articles, not the retainers of the de Menil family. - Biruitorul Talk 23:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The walls of text and badgering every vote for deletion do not obscure the fact that the subject does not (yet) meet WP:BIO. Looks like conflict-of-interest editing. Miniapolis 02:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article subject's life and work including philanthropic efforts in the United States as well as internationally in Romania and Cambodia are well sourced and referenced to numerous WP:RS including "Review of "Who Speaks for Europe" by Fritz Stern, Foreign Affairs (April 1978) [7], Lois de Menil, "L'Art américain depuis la guerre: à la recherche de l'oeuvre d'art" p35 - 39 in the Exhibition Catalogue L'Amérique aux Indépendants, 91e exposition annuelle Société des Artistes Indépendants, Grand Palais, Paris (13 March-13 April 1980)., Bob Colacello, “Remains of the Dia” Vanity Fair September 1996. [8], New York Times Letter to the Editor, March 8, 2008 “The Dia Art Foundation”, “The Medicis for a Moment: The Collapse of the DIA Dream” Phoebe Hoban New York Magazine - Nov 25, 1985, pp52 and following on google books [9], The de Menil Gallery at the Groton School [10], Boston.com review (Feb 17 2005) of a Sebastiao Salgado show at the de Menil Gallery in Groton [11], Harvard News by Nashoba Publishing review (April 7 2014) of a show of Russian photographs from the Forbes Collection at the de Menil Gallery in Groton [12], Alexandra Parigoris, “The Endless Column Restored” (February 2012). See footnote 5. [13], World Monuments Fund Fact Sheet and Board Members [14], UNESCO International Coordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of Angkor, Plenary Session (June 26 & 27 2003), pp 40-43 presentation by Lois de Menil on the Center for Khmer Studies. [15], Council of American Overseas Research Centers [16], and Lois de Menil giving inaugural address for CKS research library on Khmer TV, January 2010 [17], Article in the Phnom Penh Post by Peter Olszewski about The Center for Khmer Studies (Dec 14 2012) [18], Collection Inventory of the Cambodia National Museum by the Center for Khmer Studies [19], Lois de Menil in royal audience with King Norodam Shihamoni in Cambodia (2013), in recognition of the opening of the CKS library and National Museum cataloguing [20], Peter Olszewski. "The Center for Khmer Studies names new director". Phnom Penh Post., and Fritz Stern. "Who Speaks for Europe? The Vision of Charles De Gaulle". Foreign Affairs. With a;; od these references across numerous sources this article subject much more than meets WP:GNG and has far surpassed the threshold of WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me start by saying that each of these sources has previously been dissected but for one: this, essentially a press release that quotes two sentences of boilerplate uttered by the subject.
    • The rest largely amounts to a smattering of more or less banal trivia: we have the obligatory YouTube video, we have the letter to the editor (see WP:NEWSORG for a caution against citing such pieces), the photograph (which, by the way, does not support the claim which it is cited as supporting, namely that she served on a museum board, never mind that such honorific posts rarely evince notability), this, this and this (which don't even mention Lois de Menil), the directory-entry mention here and here, more trivial mention here, a primary-source statement, a blog post (yes, that is a blog, with no indication that any editorial oversight exists), and, finally, of course, the handshake with the King on the King's own website (as though that has any business being cited for anything).
    • In sum, even a cursory examination shows there's far, far less than initially meets the eye here. A random assortment of trivial bits, ultimately signifying nothing. - Biruitorul Talk 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The Vanity Fair article does have some nontrivial coverage of her. If there were another source, similar in prominence and in depth of coverage of her, about another phase of her life, I might be persuaded to change my mind. An in-depth source about her writings would also suffice, but the Stern "review" is really just a two-line blurb and reviews of others' works that she merely happened to translate don't count unless the review goes into depth about the translation. Or possibly something about her work in Romania that makes her sound like more of a player and less of a cheerleader than our current article does. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 27 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lois_de_Menil&oldid=1068854981"