Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greshun De Bouse


 * 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. There is a clear consensus among editors to Delete this article. If the page creator would like to continue to work on this article in Draft or User space, please contact me. Please know that if the article is restored to Draft space and then just moved back into main space, the page will be deleted and future restorations are unlikely. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Greshun De Bouse

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable - a WP:BEFORE search shows that this person is a prolific self-promoter making all kinds of self-aggrandising claims, but there is nothing beyond minor local coverage and puffery. Also likely WP:COI concerns given the editing pattern here, as well as elsewhere. Melcous (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE-This article is credible and should not be deleted. References are verified. Person is notable. Additional references were added after comments were made requesting additional references. Not self-promotion. Facts with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete appears he's either running for office or is connected to someone who is. Nothing notable. Six citations for two lines of text is another red flag. With that much RS, your article should be at least a paragraph. This is ref padding. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is credible and should not be deleted. References are verified. Person is notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I also can't find significant coverage for bio in RS, and it does seem like promo is going on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be mostly made up of passing mentions. No significant coverage, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO.   scope_creep Talk  12:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything in terms of SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is this article being targeted for deletion when the statements made are true, verified references for statements are provided, and the accomplishments are notable? Please do not censor this speech. Not self-promotion, not politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) DO NOT DELETE: Oaktree b, the article was at least a paragraph previously, with verifiable references. However, someone edited the article repeatedly to what is displayed currently. I do not know what ref padding is. Melcous, I do not know you. Why do you seem to have a personal vendetta against me, and be leading the crusade of page deletion? If additions are made to the article, you erroneously refer to it as puffery or similar. If additions are not made, you erroneously allege lack of notability. The person and accomplishments are notable. If you see an actual error, perhaps you should reach out and try to assist one with potential corrections, rather than launching an unwarranted deletion crusade. Oaktree, Nothing in this article indicates or illudes to the political status of the subject or any of said subject's real or perceived connections. Please explicate where you find any political reference. Otherwise, please do not allow your inaccurate personal opinion to interfere with freedom of speech for a notable subject. Thank you. Alanscottwalker, What self-promo? There is none. The statements concerning the individual are notable facts with verified references. To all who post in reference to this matter, please refrain from false accusations, and/or negatively skewed personal opinions, as such has no place here. If you have constructive corrective suggestions, please relay such respectfully, rather than aligning with a speech censorship campaign on a notable subject. If something necessary is missing, why not communicate that and assist, rather than maliciously considering a deletion? Perhaps there are things needed of which I was/am not aware. If you really have honorable intentions, assist, DO NOT DELETE. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There nothing about this individual in terms of contributions, coverage, and SIGCOV. Paul H. (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Paul H., Your statements are false. Coverage and references provided. What is SIGCOV? Inform me of how to check this. I do not understand why you all seem joyful about censoring speech for a notable individual with verifiable references. Why the personal attack? Why not assist with corrections (if needed)? DO NOT DELETE. Are you all being paid to continue this personal censorship attack on me and the subject?

N, How do I sign my comments? I am sticking to the topic. The issue is you all are attacking, rather than trying to assist. There is no reason for anyone to have placed this article for deletion consideration, unless they had/have malicious intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE: To All Who Post Here: Be a help and not a hindrance. I have asked how to sign comments to be in compliance. No one responded. I have asked what is, and how to check SICGOV. No one responded. I have explicated not knowing what ref padding is. No one responded. I have asked for assistance with "constructive" corrections if need be (not malicious censorship campaigns). No one responded. The lack of response to my sincere attempts to improve (if need be) is indicative of persons intentionally and maliciously attempting to mute an article on a notable subject with verifiable references. All you all have done is criticize, and post adverse, often false statements about the article and author. At what point are you all going to attempt to assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhpost (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete When I searched for better sources, the most prominent hits were a lot of self-promotion by the subject and almost no coverage of her from independent sources. See also the analysis of the provided sources by Dennis Brown on the article's talk page.
 * Addressing various points by :
 * Sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end ( ~ ).
 * WP:SIGCOV refers to "significant coverage", and the link above (and right here) points to the relevant section of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
 * This discussion is to determine whether the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. A proper encyclopedia article needs to be sourced from significant coverage (there's that term again) by reliable sources which are independent of the subject.  Ideally, we would want to see more than just coverage on local news sites, but even leaving that aside, the sum total of what we can glean from the given sources is "Greshun De Bouse is an activist and she created these days" and little else, and that doesn't add up to an encyclopedia article.  If anything, there's more support here for articles on these Days that she's created rather than a biographical piece on her herself, and that's not saying much.
 * One of the important guidelines on Wikipedia is to assume good faith of one's fellow editors. We're discussing policy here, not making judgements about the subject or about you as an editor, and it is not a personal attack to state that the article you wrote does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.  Please do not accuse other editors of maliciousness or censorship without good reason.  To be fair, I think the nominator's original statement could have been worded less unkindly, but you should understand that we have to fend off a lot of spam, self-promotion, and outright vandalism around here, so an experienced editor should be forgiven for being a bit jaded.
 * By that same token, don't assume that the editors above haven't tried to help. Many, many articles have been "saved" because the deletion discussion put more eyes on the situation and better sources were found to bring the articles in question up to snuff, or close enough.  It may be that this is not possible in this case.
 * I hope this helps. Feel free to ask further questions, and please check out the links to policies and procedures provided above.  Thanks.  --Finngall talk  22:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Finngall, It is a personal attack, when I have asked for help and such help has not been provided. Just because one is an experienced editor, does not mean good faith should be assumed if they are making adverse comments, but not responding to my requests for help. Just as you at least stated how to sign, others could have done the same. If they are experienced editors and I am not, why not at least offer to assist me? All should assume good faith relative to me as well, rather than directly or indirectly assuming whatever they allege is wrong with the article was done intentionally. The situation seems very one-sided. Editors can not make false accusations and erroneous statements, then again falsely accuse me of making statements that are not "civil", or that could be worded better. I believe their statements should be worded better. I believe the subject is notable, and the article is well referenced. I clearly am open to "constructive" article improvement. Hence, the reason I have been asking for help. The article has been in existence for some time. It was lengthier previously,but persons kept editing it to what you currently see. Thus, I left it that way. Why would you all campaign to delete an article when I repeatedly ask for help? I do not understand this. Also, the self-promotion comments are unwarranted. Sbhpost (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , you might like to read WP:BLUDGEON - this page is specifically to discuss policy reasons whether this article meets wikipedia criteria, particularly around notability, and continuing to make long posts here may be counter-productive to your goals. See also Guide to Deletion and particularly the section "Please do not take it personally". I will also note that the reference to "self-promotion" in my deletion nomination refers to the subject of the article (which is fairly clearly demonstrated for example here), not to you. Unless of course you are the subject of the article, in which case please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Thank you Melcous (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per WP:SOAP, WP:CIO, WP:SPAM and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2022, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not a social media website nor a free web host, and that we are a charity, and abuse of our status is subject to the harshest penalties. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2022 (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.