Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronit baras


 * 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. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Sandstein 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronit baras

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An article about a life coach based in Brisbane written by the subject's husband. No independent reliable sources, no hard facts establishing notability (the book was self-published at Trafford Publishing), mostly written in a non-encyclopedic advertising style. High on a tree 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam. -- J Readings 08:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review updates -- User: GalBaras 10:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The pruning has helped and the article looks less like an advertisement now. I don't see much improvement about the notabilty issue though. Regards, High on a tree 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Recurring dreams 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Is a published author with moderate success, and there are reliable sources, . Article needs to be cleaned up though. Recurring dreams 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-published books are usually not valid as arguments for notability. Regards, High on a tree 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please help. As a new contributor, I would really appreciate suggestions to make this article stay. -- User: GalBaras 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as pure WP:COI spam for a non-notable individual. Wikipedia is not web host or free bio service. The "sources" provided are not independent, third parties that make significant coverage. VanTucky  (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How are the Courier-Mail or the ABC not independent, third party sources? Recurring dreams 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Key word: significant coverage. Two trivial mentions by local sources are not notability. VanTucky  (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Courier Mail is one of Australia's largest newspapers by circulation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is the national broadcaster in Australia. The articles both appear to me to be specifically about the subject of the article and not a mere trivial mention.  If these sources are not acceptable I struggle to see what would be. -- Mattinbgn/talk 07:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The cited reports are from ABC radio Brisbane, however, which appears to be a local station, and their main subject seems to be the free hugs phenomenon.
 * Were you able to actually read the whole Courier Mail article? It is not freely available online. Regards, High on a tree 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have access to the complete article, and can verify that it is wholly about Ronit Baras, is 375 words and has some bio info, info on the book, and some quotes from Baras. Cheers Kevin 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep given her work as an author and some media interest. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, and WP should not be used as an attempt to increase notability. In other words, spam. --Greatest hits 06:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Australia Counts. Notability in Australia, by radio stations, offline magazines, universities and government agencies should count for something, even if they are in Australia. What happens with someone who is mostly notable offline? Please advise and I will happily comply -- Gal Baras 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Notability is established through multiple independent reliable sources. Any clean up or potential conflict of interest issues can be dealt with outside AfD. -- Mattinbgn/talk 07:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment there are sources, but they are based upon human interest, not intrinsic notability. this is in a sense the same principle as our articles about murderers--either any two sources for notability is enough, and all of both sets of articles stay as long as there are sources, or we consider intrinsic notability and we reject them, or we say articles are notable for the good guys.DGG (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any positive practical advice? People, I totally respect your zealous defence of Wikipedia standards. This is what makes it such a great site, which I often use. I would really appreciate any advice you can offer on types of things I can do to make this article conform. Ronit has been nominated for Australian of the Year, but they don't publish nominees, only winners. She regularly writes for a Hebrew newspaper in Melbourne, which has an entry in Hebrew Wikipedia, but they do not advertise the list of regular contributors. She lectures on behalf of the University of Queensland, but they don't show it on their web site either. She has organized events for Brisbane City Council, but they don't advertise it online. What can I do? Please help me out, because Ronit Baras is a notable person people should know about.
 * 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.