Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elle Jauffret


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Elle Jauffret

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The author hasn't really written any earth shattering works, but more importantly the author herself requested we delete the article. She seems unhappy about items in the article and the article itself. I see no reason not to honor that reasonable request Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my rationale a bit. The lack of notability for the books is more important than the author's desire to have the article removed.  Though (and assuming this is the real Elle Jauffret) some consideration should be given to her request.  As for the books themselves, they do not meet the criteria descried in NB mentioned by Eggishorn below.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose and call for closure of this AfD "subject doesn't like the article" is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and even less valid as an argument for deletion. The subject is either notable or she isn't. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your vote doesn't address the fact the author isn't very notable. Your call for closure is ridiculous.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support While Orangemike has a point, preserving an article just to prove a point is a bad policy.  The works mentioned do not apparently meet WP:NB (particularly the "non-trivia" part of the standard), so notability isn't really established.  --Eggishorn (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are one or two sources, but nothing that would really show that Jauffret has really done anything that would merit an entry at this point in time. The sources are either primary or local, and I can find no other sources that discuss her at all. That the author herself is requesting the article's deletion is sort of an extra oomph to this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close per Orangemike. Subject apparently meets notability requirements and, judging by her online presence and promotional activity, can reasonably be described as a public figure. Her desire to control her public image is a rather bad reason to remove the article. I don't see that the account requesting removal has been verified as the article subject's or that any actual inaccuracies have been shown -- the only content that editor removed was a bibliography consistent with Amazon information. When you google the author's name, most of the top hits are self-published promo pages, hardly consistent with any desire for privacy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If most of the Google hits are self-promotional, how is this a notable author? -- Eggishorn   (talk)   (contrib)  14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to request that someone explain how she meets notability requirements. I can't find anything beyond the two local sources for her. I don't see where her participating in a festival really pushes this towards notability guidelines either- the festival looks to be big, but not so overwhelmingly noteworthy that participation would give automatic notability. I can't find any in-depth coverage of her besides the two local sources already on the article, which makes me doubt that she passes notability guidelines or that her participation in the event was so overwhelmingly notable that she'd pass on that front either. I think that the term "she represented the Embassy of France" is a little misleading in that I don't think that she was the "face of France", but rather one of several or a large group of people that were attending the event in relation to France's Embassy and France itself. (Sort of along the lines of "if you're good enough and a native of France, you'll be said to be representing France at this event".) This is further confirmed by the fact that a search on the official KEF website brings up nothing when it comes to her name and a Google search brings up under 200 hits- most of which are junk or primary hits for her. For all we know, she could've been one of a few dozen or hundred people said to be "representing the Embassy of France", which is why we should confirm that any of her appearances are as notable as they claim to be before automatically claiming this to be a notable person and a bad faith nomination. I'm willing to change my vote, but I'd really like to see some confirmation and explanation about how she passes notability guidelines, backed up with a few more reliable sources that talk about her. I'm just not convinced she's all that notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete There are two reliable secondary sources: La Jolla Light and The Gazette (Maryland). Both are "local author" profiles, we have always given these types of sources half measure at best since they are somewhat biased to give exposure to local authors, they are not truly independent. Furthermore this is not a well known or popular author, there are 0 books recorded on LibraryThing, 0 books in WorldCat. Finally there are no book reviews anywhere, which has always been the lowest bar entry for author notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It occurs to me that Ms. Jauffret may have (I assume completely innocently) stumbled on a way for a non-notable person to circumvent WP:GNG. 1:Create an article about yourself (probably as an IP), 2: Ask on WP:BLPN for the article to be removed using a registered account with your name, 3: Wait for editors to defend you against WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Not saying that is what happened here, but as Green Cardamom shows, the only sources here are trivial.  Is this a possible loophole in policy, I wonder? --  Eggishorn   (talk)   (contrib)  18:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm sometimes a little hesitant about automatically closing things when there's even a hint of potential non-notability. The problem is that sometimes you'll have nominations that might not seem kosher to some, but still brings up a valid point: that a subject is not notable enough to pass notability guidelines. I personally don't have a problem with AfDing this, given that there are serious doubts towards notability and the subject herself (supposedly) has requested its removal due to incorrect information. Something to take into account is that given that someone says that the article has incorrect info, we should automatically suspect any and everything in the article unless we can verify it completely. That's where local sources become more of a hindrance than a help: it's in their best interest to portray Jauffret positively, perhaps even report her word for word when she overemphasizes her impact in something. It's very common for a local paper to say that an author is "bestselling" when really they've only sold about 100 books on Amazon in a very specific category. That's why LS are so depreciated unless they're a source that's widely esteemed for their fact checking, and even then we should try to back it up with other RS that aren't local. I'm not trying to say that she's a liar or that she didn't participate in things, but that we should take the claims in the article and the local sources with a grain of salt unless we can verify it in non-local RS or at least a primary source that isn't Jauffret herself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails GNG. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Regardless of any desires of possibly the subject of this article, at the heart of the matter is that we have is a couple of community papers providing coverage. That's not sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete on compassionate grounds. Please give my regards to Miss Elle. DracoE 17:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not make personal attacks. Beerest355 Talk 18:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW Draco, I have never heard of Elle Jauffret I saw what is (probably her) complaint on the BLP board.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.