Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil

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. Despite the vehement defence from several SPAs, the "delete" !votes are more firmly policy-based. No convincing sources meeting any notability guideline have been brought forward. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lois de Menil

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Lois 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)

Let's review the sources presented:

• A letter written by the subject
• Passing mention in an article with another subject (the Dia Art Foundation)
• Blurb on an art gallery site
• Passing mention
• Directory entry

All right, so I think it's pretty clear none of this material justifies a separate article - it's either not independent or trivial. Which leaves us with this, a long, glossy Vanity Fair piece about the tribulations of the Dia Foundation. Here, the subject does rack up more mentions, but I would submit none of them remotely indicate encyclopedic notability. They're almost a parody of the idle rich:

That's all very interesting, I'm sure, but it hardly seems notable, as defined by

Note: this was previously deleted as part of another discussion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thank you for taking the time to review my entry on Lois de Menil in such detail. I am continuing to edit it and I would like to contest the proposed deletion because of recent changes. In response to the critiques, I have supplied further references from Cambodian sources, as well as sources relating to her work in Romania, both of which are more recent and relevant contributions than her time at DIA, though the former received greater visibility in English language news sources. The Center for Khmer Studies which Dr. de Menil contributed to founding, constitutes the only research library in Cambodia outside of Phnom Penh. I struggle to see how that is not a notable contribution to education. I am open to all constructive criticism of this piece and welcome your response. Vwikiv (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv — Vwikiv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • In terms of what you've added:
• Not an independent source
• No mention of the subject
• Directory entry
• Passing mention
• A search result is not a source
• Press release, not an independent source, meeting someone is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biruitorul,

I take your point about the sources including "non-independent" publications and not being of the quality you would hope for in a wikipedia bio. There is an inherent challenge, however, in holding up notability in Cambodia to the same standards as in the US, since the number of English language publications about Camboodia -- particularly about library scholarship -- are minimal. That is partly a product of the particular history of Cambodia, which destroyed most of the educational infrastructure in the late 1970s. I'm not sure where this leaves us, but I would contend that the article demonstrates enough evidence to show that Lois de Menil really did found the Center for Khmer Studies, and that the legacy of that institution in terms of research infrastructure and cataloguing the National Museum constitutes notability.

Please also note that I corrected the reference to the National Museum Catalogue so that it no longer links to google. Thanks for spotting that.

As before, I appreciate the time you are putting into this and other wiki entries on a volunteer basis. Vwikiv (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. It has a total of 16 sources as I write this comment and it is a coherent and interesting article. With regard to it been non-notable I disagree also. By virtue of the fact that 16 sources can be found it is notable. The subject matter is notable in any case. The article does not qualify for deletion. Keep Thank you Trout71 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) — Trout71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Just a note that this account is four days old, and this is the first AfD in which the user has participated. And that, "hey look, sources!" is not a valid argument - those sources need to be analyzed for relevance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article shouldn't be deleted. The subject is a published author, has held prominent positions, and has been influential in several notable organizations: Dia, World Monuments Funds, National Gallery of Art, Andy Warhol Museum, Center for Khmer Studies - all of which have Wikipedia entries and are noteworthy, and the last of which she founded. Also, since the original deletion request, more citations have been added. Biruitorul, in both this request for deletion, and the related request for deletion of Georges de Menil entry, you take issue with the subjects' finances. I don't see how this is relevant. Keep Thank you --Bdemenil (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Let's note the obvious
    conflict of interest here — we don't know the identity of User:Bdemenil, but we do know he wrote a now-deleted article
    on Benjamin de Menil, the son of Lois de Menil. Participants can draw their own conclusions from that.
  • Let's also note that said user added this link to the "Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press"; needless to say, that's not an acceptable source, per
    WP:SPS. Truly, this article and a few related ones are turning into a walled garden. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Biruitorul, in this discussion you have a pattern of attacking the person rather than his or her argument. I do not list myself as a source. Nor is it necessary for my opinion to have weight. But a factually based argument should be addressed. It is a fact for instance that this page now contains many independent sources. It seems a stretch to dismiss them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.35.103 (talk)

OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. I have been a longtime/frequent user of Wikipedia, and I only registered today so that I can oppose the proposition to delete the page related to Lois de Menil. That proposition really surprises me. I am a Cambodian national, and I am working for an independent Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Cambodia since 2007. I know very well CKS, the organisation for which Mrs De Menil serves as a president. I can testify on 2 points. 1/ CKS is a very well known and reputable organisation, from an academic and from an intellectual perspective. It achieves good results, it generates high level studies and knowledge that is shared with Cambodian scholars and it has very strong credentials in the country, and has collaborated with international organisations like the United Nations, with Cambodian Universities, and with International NGOs. CKS has been operating for many years in Cambodia, brought in the country high level international researchers, academics, experts and professors which are providing lot of insights and knowledge related to Cambodia's history and culture; the organisation's reputation and quality are excellent. Mrs De Menil is a well known, well respected professional, and the role she played in supporting Cambodia's cultural preservation and history is very important. Mrs De Menil has been instrumental in ensuring CKS credibility and quality. I understand Wikipedia policy to ensure quality of all references and information that are posted on the website. It is a commendable standard. Therefore, please allow me to ask you to keep the page online and accessible to the public so that those improvements can be made. I am not sure that I agree with the nature and the form of some of the above criticism made by Biruitorul, but I can see that somebody is already working to address the comments that have been made. I am sure constructive improvements can be made, so that future Wikipedia's readers remain well informed. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs) — Khmer15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Biruitorul: In response to Biruitorul's allusion to a walled garden, the Lois de Menil entry is referenced by two wiki articles (Dia Art Foundation and Center for Khmer Studies) that have nothing to do with Benjamin de Menil, nor does her entry mention him. Furthermore, the entry links to 29 other wiki articles. This does not seem to fit the definition of a walled garden. 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

Striking second comment signed by the same user, Vwikiv. Vwikiv: please only express your opinion once here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator - the participants on this AfD thus far have been User:Vwikiv (edits only articles related to the de Menil family), Trout71 (new account, first AfD edit here), Bdemenil (probably the article subject's son, first AfD edit here), Khmer15 (single-purpose account) and 2601:6:8000:6440:5810:4034:B015:690C (likewise). - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator - The nature of the participants, how old or new their accounts are, do not change anything to the accuracy of the facts and the reliability of the new information that is presented. The quality and the relevance of many of the criticisms formulated by User Biruitorul makes me question the impartiality and the objectivity of that person, and therefore the validity of the feedback. The person seems to have engaged in a personal "vendetta" against the De Menil family. Some of the assumptions formulated by Biruitorul are borderline calumnious and biased. I quote: Press release, not an independent source, meeting someone is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC). User Biruitorul needs to be much more accurate with his feedback, better informed, and less disrespectful. Not an independent source? I disagree. In addition, the fact that Mrs De Menil has met with the King of Cambodia, is a significant event, that fully proves notability of Mrs De Menil. King Sihamoni is not "someone', as suggested, but he is Head of State of Cambodia, and a symbolic and well respected public figure for all Cambodians, and for many foreigners too. Being invited and received by the King of Cambodia in his residence is not a common fact, and it is to say the least a very significant event. As a Cambodian I would please ask you to be culturally more sensitive. I am not contesting the fact that some of the above mentioned references can be improved. But please, let's stay objective and impartial here. And let's have as a shared goal to improve the quality of the information that is presented on Wikipedia. Please let's not enter into any personal "vendetta", specifically when there is no ground for it. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notability not established. Non-independent press release is not
  ⓣⓒ 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OpposeThis article shouldn't be deleted. Note to the Editor. Dear Sir, My name is Solinn Lim and i am a Cambodian working in international development field in Asia based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. I came across the proposed deletion of Ms. de Menil's profile and I would like to share with you my experience. I met her once in Cambodia when she was visiting a local orphanage called Children’s Peaceful Home in Srer Ampil locality. She introduced her friends who were potential donors to the founder's orphanage, and then went on to visit a group of local authority who managed a small museum in the middle of nowhere (about 10 mins or so from the orphanage). I was a guest of the orphanage's founder and my interest was to visit the museum because i heard about this amazing project trying to educate and stop local farmers from looting priceless artifacts of thousands years of age and sell them to black markets in exchange for a bag of rice. Such looting happens every day and my worst nightmare as you can imagine is that nothing would be left for my children's generation. In my 15 years of professional experience in programme development in Asia, i can humbly share with you, that funding for area such as cultural preservation in Cambodia has diminished, and we rely mainly on private funding such as that of Ms. de Menil's. A local expert whom i know very well explained to me how important it was that someone like Ms. de Menil chose to focus on cultural preservation adn development work. Let me be clear that the funding alone would not have been sufficient. Her negotiation skills and acute political awareness were so essential for her project to succeed in the area that is full of powerful business interest such as this. At a seminar I attended on digitalizing the entire catalogue of the National Museum i got a good glimpse of the complexity - just on the technical level alone they had to deal with 3 languages that CAmbodia uses: Khmer, French and English. Let me tell you how important the work of Madame de Menil to Cambodians. As a nation, we went through a century of colonization and the recent murderous genocide accounted for the death of 25% of our population. As the UN's hybrid Khmer Rouge/genocide trial is still on going, we Cambodians are confused of our history, fearful of living our present, and not ready for our future. We are in limbo. We need to preserve and rediscover our past, our once glorious ancient civilization in Southeast Asia, through the work of Ms. de Menil that would help us understand where we came from. Such preservation and education are so important because it would help our fragile nation to regain our confidence, overcome sufferings from centuries of humiliations, rebuild our national identity, and pass on the pride to our next generations. I can go on and on about Ms. De Menil and especially about the CKS's achievement since i am a regular participants of their valuable research seminars. I can provide you more references to the work of the CKS and Ms. de Menil as i have learned a lot about her from local media. I hope this humble testimony would help you reconsider to keep this profile on Wikipedia. Please let me knwo if i could be of service to Wikipedia in regards to the case of Ms. de Menil. Please accept my apologies for the typos as i am writing to you on my mobile. Sincerely, Solinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sengkiim (talk • contribs) — Sengkiim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete While some members of this family are undoubtedly notable, notability is
  paid editing as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note to the administrator - the same arguments are repeated again and again from the pro-deletion users, while the side that opposes deletion brings new testimonies into the picture. Mrs Lois de Menil has an established proven track record of actions and results. She legitimately deserves a page in Wikipedia. Many professionals that have met her and that collaborated with her can testify, with example and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmer15 (talk • contribs)

Stricken because you only get one vote.

ⓣⓒ 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to the administrator -Please allow time so that Mrs De Menil profile can be improved, and edited. The feedback on what needs to be changed is clear. It is just a matter of time before independent sources are found that can support her achievements and her contributions. Please also note that the pro-deletion users are applying double standard, lecturing others on high standards that needs to be respected, while they are feeling comfortable making emotional judgement about others that are groundless fantasies e.g. FreeRangeFrog assumptions. Their action and words reinforce my point: what they are looking for is simply to take down the page, and not to contribute objectively to improve the page quality and accuracy, and therefore to contribute to improve with impartiality the quality of wikipedia, to a larger extent. Quality of content in Wikipedia is the goal. I am not interested in blindly speculating on who is who, and who is doing what. 71.174.42.185 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15[reply]

Note to the administrator - While supporting to keep the article so that modification can be made to improve compliance with WIkipedia policies and regulation, specific parts of the text and selected references that are in contradiction with those policies and regulation can be easily improved. However, seeking better alignment with important principles of neutral point of view and of verifiability, I would like to seek guidance and clarifications as per why the Phnom Penh Post article or the official Website of King Sihamoni are not qualified by the pro deletion as fitting with those 2 principles. Could you please provide clear example and advice as per what criteria you use to define neutral, and verifiability? That would be very useful. Many thanks in advance for your support. 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Khmer15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.185 (talk)

• Delete I searched Newspapers.com and Highbeam for any articles that might establish notability. I can't find any. I'll remind newer participants that creating new accounts to "vote" in this AfD is obvious to experienced editors and only increases the likelihood that the article will be deleted. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the administrator There are two facts that I will now submit. The first is that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of notability. It has succeeded in indicating it's notability. The sources aren't the best but it is sourced. In response to User:I am One of Manys comment I am not in anyway associated with the other voters as can be checked. I don't think we even live in the same continent. I don't appreciate unfounded accusations. In any case, such a comment seems to suggest that you have run out of arguments for the deletion of this article. The comment made by User:Biruitorul regarding the age of my account should not have been mentioned as it is both irrelevant and an attempt to discredit my view without actually having to challenge my view. I contest that this article cannot be deleted on the grounds of non-notability or for being unsourced. So on what grounds can it be deleted? Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

ⓣⓒ 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Origamite: So you are tacitly accusing me of being a sock puppet. I am now a "suspected user". Well that's just bloody wonderful. I am beginning to understand now. If I vote in a way that contradicts your perceived consensus or in this case your preferred consensus because there is no consensus I get labelled a sock puppet. Very easy way to discredit my point of view and turn a vote. If you need proof that I am not a sock them I will withdraw my vote and let you have the article. I am not particularly passionate about it. I found on this page a few days ago and thought it was descent. Which was why I voted and watched the page. Now I am familiar enough with Wikipedia procedure to know that the case for the article being deleted on account of being non-notable is hopeless. It has indicated notability. As for source have a look at source 17. It along with quite a few sources are relevant. The article is well-written, sourced and notable. What reason is there for deletion. There you are. I made my point without accusing you of sock puppetry. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

ⓣⓒ 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Origamite: I am not requesting anything. Most of the comments on this page regarding my account are wrong. This is not my first ADF discussion and I am not associated with any other voter. I will stick to the reasons I have given. I would also assume that the kings time is limited and so he would only meet with people who are inherently notable in some way. I will let the Admin ascertain the reliability of the sources. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep despite the continuing inappropriate comments above. I've checked her book in WorldCat [1] , and it is in over 400 libraries and ahas been taken seriously by academics, with reviews in
  WP:PROF, but it is nonetheless contributory. Probably her main notability is as sponsor of the Center for Khmer Studies, -- a research institution for which there are quite a few third party references, and which has produced many important publication--I'm adding some to the article on it. I think it would qualify as the leading research center and library in its subject. It is of course open to question to what extend her role with various institutions is only as an interested provider of funding, but this is true of most people who are called philanthropists. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or userfy, no reliable sources found indicating notability. Comment: why are there six 'note to administrator' s above, from five accounts? 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]