Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliana Benador (2nd 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   keep. joe deckertalk to me 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliana Benador
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I stumbled upon this article and it seems to not meet notability guidelines and it reads like an advertisement to me. There hasn't seemed to be any news about her in 3 or 4 years. Rowrowrowurboat (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established by the references in the article, as well as other references brought forward in the previous AfD debate. Notability is not temporary and has no expiration date, so the lack of recent news coverage is irrelevant. Cullen328 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator appears likely to be a single purpose account dealing only with this article. Cullen328 (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per the reasoning of the prior AFD discussion. There hasn't been any news about Joan of Arc in the last three or four centuries, but we're not going to delete that article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Nom misses the point. There hasn't been much news about her ever . Two of the Google Classic hits mention her in passing. She said something about a subject unrelated to her, to the other 2 hits, which also show up on Google News; that's less trivial than utterly trivial, but none of it is about her, and therefore non of it establishes notability. Anarchangel (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Same with the cites in the article. Stuff happened, and the sources prove that. We have to take the author's word for it that she was there, or that her being there meant anything. Anarchangel (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Nominator being a single purpose account. No real indication of non-notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. Real indication of non-notability by only 2 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe she passes WP:BIO. Also Gnews is hardly an indicator of notability or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    21:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Hullaballoo. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability, it looks self published and trivial. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not the quantity of the references that is important in this case, but the quality of the references. This is not an article about a pop star.  I challenge anyone advocating "delete" to read the coverage in the Asia Times and The Nation, and then tell me that this is not in-depth coverage.  In years or decades, when the history of the Iraq War is being written in depth, this Wikipedia article will function as a useful resource for helping to understand how that war was marketed.  It would be sad to see it deleted.  As for "self published", why would the devastating article in The Nation be referenced if that was the case? Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've re-read those two articles carefully. The Asia Times article was in my opinion self published, 8 years ago, and in The Nation article she admits spreading lies - news about news is rarely noteworthy. I also read the unrelated refs in the first AFD, they're all trivial. There isn't enough to establish notability. In fact for a publicist it could be described as a pretty poor showing. I can see your point, however I think you've misunderstood what a quality reference is. My opinion is that she has no quantity or quality references. Szzuk (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Cullen328. Examples are given of substantial in-depth coverage in important publications. I don't understand Szzuk's comment that "news about news is rarely noteworthy", unless xe is suggesting that public relations people can never be notable. By the way, there are more GHits under the alternative spelling "Eleana".--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Szzuk expressed the opinion that Jim Lobe's article in Asia Times Online was somehow "self published". There isn't a shred of evidence for that.  If the editor meant "self promotion" then that is also incorrect.  Jim Lobe is a well-known and long time critic of the neo-conservative movement that Benador served so enthusiastically, and Lobe is the last person that Benador would go to to promote or "publish" herself.  Lobe's article and the article in The Nation both make the explicit point that Benador is of long-term historic significance.  That's exactly why we should keep this article.  Anarchangel and Libstar failed to notice that her first name can be spelled two ways, and searched under the least common spelling. For those who want more in-depth coverage that what is already in the article, here's an article  from The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 April 2011


 * Keep - article has sufficient independent reliable sources to meet WP:N, but should be expanded with additional independent sources such as interviews, to better meet BLP requirements. Grounds for deletion have not been established in accordance with established policy and guideline. There is room for slight rewriting to reduce any hint of POV, such as literally quoting opinionated sources. Benador Associates has additional coverage in several books. Eleana Benador also has similar book coverage. --Lexein (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.