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. North America1000 00:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberatum[edit]

Liberatum (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)

Redirected to the Pablo Ganguli article, but this has been reverted. Undoubtedly Ganguli gets quite a bit of press, but Liberatum doesn't (for example, the cited Vogue article mentions it, in connection with Ganguli). Considering this is an alleged organisation active during the height of the internet age, I can find nothing of substance about it that is independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with this except I follow what the organisation, and see what it has achieved in England itis phenomenal worthy of mention more than a lot of things on Wikipedia that are kept. Vogue is the best and most reliable source of information other than The Times, Financial Times and The Daily Mail. It is considered the bible of the contemporary upmarket ideas. Liberatum works independently from Ganguli as I know for a fact that he employs people to do events all over the world if you research it you will find that. I think you could be making a mistake if you delete it I have probably made mistakes writing this Cricket500 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having done some background check, it seems Sionk has been editing Liberatum related pages and the company's founder for a couple of years or so. Also, what is most perplexing is the sudden urge to nominate the page for deletion even though the page has been on for almost ten years with clearly reliable and credible sources that are cited. The organisation seems to have been operating in many countries and newspapers of different countries all have reported its activities. One wonders: was Sionk personally linked to the company and therefore holds some motive? or does Sionk suddenly no longer recognises the veracity of serious and credible organisations, newspapers, companies and publications all reporting on the company's activities and existence? Kamilakook (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware that I've been editing Liberatum related pages for several years. My first edit of this page, in fact, was in April. I came across it when a new editor added a link to Liberatum from the Amanda Eliasch article. When I redirected Liberatum, and when I nominated it for deletion, there were only two sources cited - one is an article from Vogue which simply says "reception and dinner hosted by Indian impresario Pablo Ganguli, the founder of the global cultural diplomacy forum, Liberatum", the other is a company website (not a reliable journalistic source). Even Cricket500 (above) agrees that Liberatum only gets passing mentions in newspapers. Wikipedia's notability guidelines, WP:GNG, requires significant coverage of the subject, not passing mentions in relation to something/somebody else. Is there any in-depth news coverage about Liberatum you can provide? Sionk (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good day to you Sionk. The evidence shows, through, reliable sources cited that Liberatum has been significantly mentioned and covered by leading newspapers in many countries. You keep mentioning Vogue but what about the other newspapers such as the New York Times and the Independent? Vogue also featured Liberatum in its headline as the main story not just a passing mention. Are we reading the same thing? It seems Liberatum runs programmes, festivals and initiatives with different names in several countries. Just been checking online and reading all about them. I'm surprised you can't see them as they are hard to miss. Wall Street Journal, Guardian, GQ. The list goes on. The BBC reporting an entire programme on Liberatum is not reliable or significant enough for you? Kamilakook (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can see you edited Liberatum owned festival pages in 2014. Istancool being one of them. Kamilakook (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? If we can't rely on newspapers as credible sources, what other options do you suggest? What are you trying to imply by saying "paid newspapers". This is slander. 81.33.28.244 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)— 81.33.28.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is becoming absurd? Yesterday I was putting citations on an article and the sockpuppet kept deleting them, today somebody who is trying to do something in life is being deleted? I have only been on Wikipedia for two weeks yet there is more drama about keeping people who are doing good things for women than stopping people from deliberately adding puff to their pages. Checked Liberatum again, there are a number of videos on culture, Women have benefited from the organisations support. This is not my world I am into Cricket and roses but I do not like to see destruction of useful data. Cricket500 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (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.
More