Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (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 but revert. There might be usable material in the history, and the history libelous so that it should be removed. Therefore I am not actually deleting the history, but reverting to an older version. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Leuren Moret
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not think this particular scientist is notable enough for her own article. See WP:PROF. She does not seem to have enough mainstream media attention to establish her notability. We need to have more than just "alternative media interviews" in order to establish reliably and neutrally the biography, credentials, and impact of this particular person. Without such sources (which are sorely lacking) we cannot write a Wikipedia-calibre article. Let her get some mainstream media attention and then we can include her. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- looks like someone went through removing references about half a year ago. I'm afraid you are simply not familar with Google News, there are quite a few mainstream news results for her. Get rid of the stupid YouTube videos and spam and wiki-copies, she gets about 11,000 ghits. I'm not really comfy with the article tone or how it's been edited, but they cleaned it up after the last AfD and it's gone downhill at somepoint -- the answer is simply to fix it up again. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like your Google News search turned up a lot more "promotional" interviews from very minor news-outfits like Vive Le Canada, Collective Bellaciao, and Bay Area Indymedia. While I'm sure many of these news-sources are worth reading, they aren't really the caliber of notability we usually require for satisfying the media attention portion of WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Daily Star and Tehran Times are not minor-news outfits. If it's verifiable, there's no BLP, the person is widely discussed and in the media -- and she is -- I don't really consider notability an issue. Thank you for your comments, though. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep omitting of course the first paragraph of unsourced OR. Sufficiently notable in the media. Not a scientist, of course. DGG (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient independent coverage exists.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as attack page. The way it is written now, this is an attack page and should be speedied per WP:BLP. Apart from that, although the subject seems to miss WP:PROF I guess she makes WP:BIO, so no prejudice against recreation of a neutrally written and sourced article. --Crusio (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy CSD-G10, per Crusio. Delete this, person may be notable, but this page is written for the purpose of disparaging the subject and ought to be deleted immediately. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - then revert to an early version of the page that wasn't an attack. Period. Otherwise, your votes are suggesting I could vandalize or slowly derail Albert Einstein and turn it into an attack page and suddenly he'd be eligable for speedy. I strongly recommend reviewing the article history. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert per LogicalPremise -- any version from approximately a year ago would not constitute an attack page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2008 (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.