Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:31, 10 February 2015

Benjamin de Menil

Benjamin de Menil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no indication that the subject of this article — written, we should add, by one Bdemenil — is notable. Let's look through the references.

• A blurb on the site of WNYC, which at the time just happened to be his employer. ("Producer Benjamin de Menil has put together a new album….") Fails the "independent of the subject" requirement of WP:BASIC.

• A puff piece in the alumni magazine of Brown University, which de Menil attended. For one, every university with a magazine has these "look at all the interesting things our alumni are doing now!" sections: Columbia has one, as does Dartmouth, and Stanford, and UVA, and on and on. Of course, some of the people featured are notable. Many are not. In fact, at a glance, none of the people in the Brown article seem notable. Plus, again, this fails the "independent of the subject" test.

• Bare passing mention on the blurb of an NGO. For one, such sites are generally unquotable—after all, they exist to promote a cause, no matter how worthy; for another, de Menil works with them (that pesky "independent of the subject" thing again); and finally, there's no "significant coverage" in this one.

In the absence of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", we should delete. - Biruitorul 14:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The article subject has achieved notability across numerous sources. At this point the references include his involvement in the charity, WNYC, and a piece about him that appeared in the alumni mag from Brown University. The article subject passes WP:GNG due to a combination of three different independent reliable sources. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you read my nomination statement, you certainly show no indication of having done so. Let's briefly go through your sources again.
    • He was working as a producer at WNYC at the time that page was generated. An employer writing about an employee is about as non-independent, COI you can get, short of an autobiography.
    • Aside from the fact that we don't normally cite charity self-description pages (not exactly in line with WP:NPOV), and from the fact that mention was barely in passing, de Menil works with said charity, called DREAM: "DREAM, iASO Records, and Benjamin de Menil launched the Bachata School in January of 2013". Again: not independent.
    • And finally, most all alumni magazines have a boosterish section showing off all the great things with which their alumni are involved. Some of those alumni are notable; many are not, and there's no rule that they are. If you look at the article that featured de Menil, for instance, none of the other alumni appear notable. Notability isn't established by having the PR department of your alma mater write a glowing profile about you.
  • In closing, if you can adduce multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, great - but you're still very far from having done so. - Biruitorul 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Oh, I did certainly read what you wrote Biruitorul, I do not agree with your assessment of the references. We each are entitled to give our view and assessment of the sources. We simply do not agree. I stand by mine. Notability is achieved. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates