Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret


 * 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. Unsourced negative material removed per WP:BLP. WjBscribe 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Leuren Moret

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is from an incomplete nom placed incorrectly here by Upsilquitch: "This article fails to meet the "Notability" guideline for Wikipedia: "topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Works referenging Moret or written by her are trivial, unreliable, and not created by independent sources. This is a self-promotional entry for a non-notable person." Sr13 (T|C) 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Weak keep There are thousands of ghits for her interviews, republished in many blogs and forums, apparently all ultimately emanating from here, but there has been no serious discussion in any mainstream source of her work. (The reason can perhaps be seen from the quote I added from her posting on the (reputable) Physics Forum blog.)
 * She has clearly been noticed, and widely noticed, but not by mainstream sources. I know some here will think therefore she isn't N. I am not sure. Perhaps it is now be possible to say that if her work is widely republished, then she is N. People will want to know who she is and to have some idea of what she is talking about.DGG 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep hits are high and lead to multiple sources. I posted a couple on the page.  Jeepday 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually the problem with this article is its failure to meet a NPOV style. There are third party references listed - but I note that at least one of them is highly critical of Moret but that information is missing from the content.-- VS  talk 07:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it offers some valuable information but it does need to be improved. CDMS 09:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue here is notability and not scientific merit. She appears notable as a participant in the debate about depleted uranium's alleged health risks, which has had wide resonance in the media worldwide. Stammer 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep cleanup--ZayZayEM 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Problems with notabality are not high enough to allow deletion. --St.daniel 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep With provisions--there should be a timeframe established for the article to be cleaned up and properly cited. Properly cited would mean EVERY FACT in the article has a verifiable third party source, properly placed. If that can be accomplished (because there's a lot in there to verify independently) I think she's notable enough. Wysdom 14:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep: If, and only if, the author can find reliable, independent sources.  ~  St ep  tr ip   18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up a lot. — Wenli 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per reasons above. Sr13 (T|C) 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve. I love a pile-on. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough for inclusion. --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as sources can be found. Nihiltres 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP. This is POV attack page and contains unsourced negative material, a no-no under BLP. I call on the closing admin to consider that this argument trumps numbers. And no, it cannot wait for cleanup if it is an attack page, although there should be no prejudice against recreation of a sourced and NPOV version of the article. Herostratus 02:04, 20 April 2007 (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.