This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
Leonora Linter is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In summary, Linter's businesses have been selling all sorts of foggy, suspicious, magic or just plain silly products, and news coverage of Estdirect has been frequent enough for Reporter to describe the company as "famous dark side company" . But I'm not sure how to phrase it to best conform BLP.
As far as I know, a Fair Trade investigation has been initiated with regard to Estdirect's Esmeralda project, and the company seems to have withdrawn from market the magic lucky rings after they were explicitly mentioned as a form of misleading business practice in a law passed about year ago. However, as the case with Tsiigu shows, any unfair business practice proceeding will take a long time; a year does not seem implausible. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The Tartu District Court has in 2007 (case 3-06-2289) upheld the ruling of the Tartu Administrative Court, which ruled that the Office of Drugs had not acted inappropriately in classifying a product named "BioNight 2006" as drug, which means that it can not be sold without registration, documentation of safety, and licensing of the vendor.
Before that, the Tartu Administrative Court has in 10 October2006 (case 3-06-981) ruled that the Office of Drugs had not acted inappropriately in classifying breast enlargement pills in the name of "Maxi Buste" as a drug.
Both of these cases involved products that Estdirect Office OÜ had been selling; the Office of Drugs classified these products as drugs, making it illegal to sell them without appropriate documentation and licensing. Accordingly, in both cases, Estdirect Office OÜ appealed the classifications at courts; the administrative courts are the first level court reviewing administrative decisions; the Tartu District Court is a second level court reviewing an appeal of the administrative court's ruling in appeal of the original administrative decision. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe one of the Estonian TV channels once bought a set of 20 of these supposedly fast-growing plants, and had a gardener experimentally grow them. They did not grow particularly fast, and the yield was rather low.
I'll see if I can find the segment on the Web somewhere. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It is available in Kanal 2's Reporter's archive: . ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize the Baltics are obscure, but they will never not be obscure if there's not a chance to create stub aritcles and have them grow... PetersVTALK 05:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that cites to Estonian language websites do not help establish notability and are not verifiable on the English language Wikipedia. Before placing the speedy tag I did a google and found 1 mention in English language. That did nothing to establish her notability, other than confirm she was the mother of a political activist. The other google returns were in Estonian, and I had no way of determining if they were about the same person, or if they established notability. And what the article said (and still says) isn't helping any. Of the three cites, one isn't even about her, it's about her company.
Being related to someone notable doesn't make her notable by itself. Being owner of a mail order service does not necessarily make her notable. If the company is notable, then create an article about the company, not a redirect to her. If she is significant to Dmitri Linter, then mention her there. I stand by my speedy deletion nomination that this article has nothing that establishes the notability of Leonora Linter.
Perhaps you could source some English language cites that explains her notability? Or even explain what is it on the Estonian websites that explain what makes her notable? --Escape Orbit(Talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The company's notability is problematic; it's herself who is a famous shady businesswoman. Company is just a vehicle, and as you can see, not her only one.
As for languageism, please refrain from that kind of bigotry. There's nothing wrong with using non-English sources where English sources are not available or hard to verify; see WP:V#Non-English sources. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, thanks. There is nothing wrong with asking for English sources when the article doesn't explain what the foreign language source is saying or verifying. As for the 'a famous shady businesswoman; When you are providing controversial information it is doubly important that the information is reliably sourced and verifiable, per Wikipedia policies on biographies of living persons. There is also issues with a biography that is essentially negative and effectively unsourced to English readers. Only those who can read Estonian can verify anything that is being said about this woman and ensure that it is not just opinion. That is a problem and policy would suggest that the article be deleted per attack page policy.
This is why I ask again; what are the Estonian cites saying? --Escape Orbit(Talk) 19:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You can't ask "again", you never asked before. The cited articles are news item describing Ms. Linter's more interesting business dealings. As you can see, there are enough of those for Estonian news media -- several major news channels, both in newspapers and TV -- to have taken interest repeatedly. Thus, she is notable.
"Kuulus hämarfirma" can be translated as 'Famous shady company'. Estonian 'hämarfirma' is not to be confused with 'varifirma'; while both 'hämar' and 'vari' refer to darkness or shadow, the first refers to shady business dealings, the second refers to a company established to shadow the real perpetrators of some sort of business from investigation or scrutiny. Of course, front companies are often established to cover up shady dealings, which further complicates the issue. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
See above addition of 15th Jan. "Or even explain what is it on the Estonian websites that explain what makes her notable?"
Thank you for explaining. I still feel there should be more suitable cites here (i.e. in English) if this controversial information is to be verifiable. If her notability is as you say then can nothing be found in English? This is not "languageism", but the simple practicalities of the English language Wikipedia and the expected readership.
Unfortunately adding 'famous' to the lead is just a case of weasel words; words that appear to support something, but don't actually explain or verify anything. Who says she is famous, and why? --Escape Orbit(Talk) 13:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If anybody believes this guy to be not fit for inclusion than you should take it to AfD, but please first try to find sources that would allow this article to stay here. Themfromspace (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)