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 no consensus. Discounting the IPs, we have no consensus about notability, but agreement that if kept this needs a rewrite. Sandstein 18:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Raymond Boulle[edit]

Jean-Raymond Boulle (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 nothing in the references that look like references about this plutocrat: they all seem to refer to his companies or their staggeringly vulgar ptoducts. TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a run-of-the mill metals trader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the references are insufficient, what tips this over the edge is the COI and promotionalism concerns I have here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- about 90% of the article is about various businessess as in:

• "In March 2016, the Jean Boulle Luxury Group announced the launch of its patent-pending, proprietary Sun King diamond compound for luxury finishes, and confirmed the delivery of the first car with this finish.[36][37]"

The rest of the article is pretty much the same. This is not a bio page, but a business page, and notability is not inherited. So, delete, for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject matter is clearly notable as already pointed out by various editors and as any objective reader will see when the citations are read and researched. To take two examples: The discovery of Voisey’s bay Mine as founding shareholder of Diamond Fields Resources has had an historical impact on mining in Canada. The discovery of a new heart valve as founding shareholder of Tendyne is a historical first in medical science.

The subject matter appears to have worked through many companies founded to become notable and, objectively, there is nothing unusual or ‘promotional’ about this and it should not be held against the article. Companies, as the building blocks of society, enable individuals to achieve notability and are therefore, to a certain extent, inseparable from their founder-owners.

Conversely, what could be construed as commercial and therefore possibly “promotional” are the specific lines below which despite being factual (after checking) have too many press release type references and these need to be rewritten and corrected: “In March 2016, the Jean Boulle Luxury Group announced the launch of its patent-pending, proprietary Sun King diamond compound for luxury finishes, and confirmed the delivery of the first car with this finish.[36][37] In March 2017, the Jean Boulle Luxury Group announced that its patent-pending Sun KingTluxury diamond finish technology had been used in a paint exhibited on a Rolls-Royce Ghost Elegance (EWB) at the 2017 Geneva Motor Show.[38][39][40] In April 2017, the Luxury Group announced that the technology had been applied to a classic Pininfarina-styled Bentley, the Bentley Azure exhibited at the Top Marques Monaco Super Car show.[41][42][43] On 11 May 2017, the group signed an agreement with AkzoNobel for the production of its aviation grade Sun King Diamond Coating for the private and commercial jet markets.[44][45] On 22 May 2017, the group launched the world’s first aircraft finished with Sun King diamond coating (produced by AkzoNobel in Holland) at EBACE 2017 in Geneva, the first to be covered in natural gem diamonds onto an ultra long-range Bombardier Aerospace Global Express.[46][47][48] ”

If we assume ALL of these lines to be too commercial, or possibly to be “promotional” (which is not a given as some references are from such entities as Forbes) then they would represent 172 words out of 1074 words in the article (excluding references, which are not counted) or 16 Percent of the article. It is therefore inaccurate and clearly an exaggeration to classify 90% of the article as being “promotional”.

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adastra_Minerals — 197.226.59.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The context that gave rise to the deletion notice is that the BLP was characterised as:

(i) a run-of-the mill metals trader. (ii) a Plutocrat. (iii) having 'staggeringly vulgar products'.

But the BLP

(i) is not a 'run-of-the mill metals trader' and is notable, given the strong quality of the BLP related sources including those cited as I have argued and which has subsequently been confirmed.

(ii) A Plutocrat is not an objective word with hints of COI and is in and of itself a BLP violation (The Wikipedia Guidelines also apply to discussion pages). In addition, I think there's no source saying that he's one and that makes the ‘plutocrat’ argument doubly invalid.

(iii) "staggeringly vulgar products" cannot be used as a basis for a deletion notice. The editor concerned did not and has not provided a source nor details for what appears to be a subjective and personal pronouncement.

The basis on which the deletion notice was created therefore (with the leitmotif "'run of the mill'" or "'normal'") was anything but 'run of the mill' or 'normal' because there was no rational foundation for the deletion notice and they are not based on rational facts per (i) - (iii) above or are a clear BLP violation.

In addition, there were factually very strong indications of COI in the deletion process when concerted votes by fake accounts came to light and were blocked. 197.226.59.60 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The current article is an excessively promotional hagiography. There are enough good sources out there to pass WP:GNG, such as this Forbes article, 1998. At present WP:TNT seems the best option. Edwardx (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the basis and the reason we are voting here is that Wikipedia articles should be judged on their notability and not the condition as per WP:NOTCLEANUP, which is an equally valid argument. The fact that you support that it clearly passes WP:GNG is an even more solid argument as to why it should be kept, to be edited by you or any other editor who feels like something shouldnt be there as it is. WP:BOLD applies. 197.226.59.60 (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, researching the article, I'm pretty sure you are a regular contributor with a fairly active account. Could you please use it when editing discussions like this? Hobit (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited and read wikipedia a lot before with a passion but I never created a user as it's not required by wikipedia policy. I have always edited using my IP (which can be changed automatically after some months by my ISP). I have no idea about IPs I have had and, of course, will have in the future especially if I get to travel but I'm fine this way as each of my contributions is to a new topic. I unfortunately wouldn't get enough time to be a full time regular with an account. 197.226.59.218 (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, but probably TNT the whole article other than the lede needs a huge rewrite. (following comments are from the DRV): [1] and [2] are both fine sources. There are many many books that discuss him (e.g. [3] where he is in the title of a chapter and [4] which is more typical of these books). Now given sources like these, this will end up being a fairly negative BLP and we tend to want darn strong sources for such a BLP. But I think we've got them. Forbes and the Globe and Mail are solid sources. This guy is certainly notable. Hobit (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Forbes article and a book (Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemma). I think the lede is now okay and fairly balanced. The article needs a rewrite however. The majority of sources out there have some fairly harsh things to say about this person. Our article doesn't reflect that. As noted, it might make sense to use WP:TNT to nuke all but the lede and then putting it under some form of protection to prevent the hagiography. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia Editors Hobit (per above), Jclemens, Szzuk and DGG inter alia refer to the quality of the sources. DGG: "the person has been involved in several companies so it can't simply be redirected to the company, and the article is not overly promotional and is within the range of what can be fixed by normal editing." Mauritiusboy (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. Nearly all of the information as currently edited on the article is factual, although mostly positive. There is no requirement for Wikipedia articles to be negative! The article should stand as it is and be open to be normally edited. It makes no sense to nuke all of it and to start afresh on the apparent basis of a couple of negative articles. It needs to be balanced. — 178.166.106.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 178.166.106.68 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is and edit. Various parts of the Forbes article are inacurrate, if the report to United Nations Security council bears out. 83.201.196.77 (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — 83.201.196.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. The individual has received enough coverage to be notable, even if the article is currently in bad shape. Cheers 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.