Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuren Moret (4th 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. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Notability not well established in reliable sources, want to get more eyes on it since it had been deleted previously. Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Talk:Leuren Moret. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep More than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The G-Books and G-News Archive searches suggest that Moret is a notable activist whose opinions attracted the attention of media all over the world. I don't see any benefits in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per not only WP:N for the subject shown by WP:V WP:RS, but the potential for expansion of the article shown by numerous Google Books citations such as the Interview with LM and Alfred Labremont Webre, Coop Radio, Vancouver BC, 23 July 2007, in Project Artichoke by David M Silvey Author House, pages 129-141. The interview ranges through her expertise on the subjects of MKULTRA, HAARP, Woodpecker Project, Superfund, Skull and Bones, the KKK, the Shiva laser and even her previous work as a drilling geologist
 * Anarchangel (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't looked into any other sources, so have no opinion as to whether we should keep or delete this, but I must point out that that book is self-published via AuthorHouse. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will hunt for better sources later. Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Proceedings of the ... annual meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Much less inspiring in terms of expanding the article, but it is definitely not self-published. There are others in books, which serves to indicated notability.
 * I would hope for agreement to the statement that self-published books would be sufficient to establish verifiability for individual statements in the article, especially when a second book places her in a CFRO interview on the same subject, but I suppose that is a matter for another time and place (the talk page). Anarchangel (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno what it is about Wikipedia and cites lately, but perfectly well formatted links are Da Phail recently. Look for the book I cited with the Google Books button up there, and you will get the page she is cited on instead of that snowstorm of URL code linking only to the cover of the article. Anarchangel (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 22:37, 26 March 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.