Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Devouard


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Carrite withdrew this nomination due to Notability (people) providing rationale for inclusion. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (indicate)  10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Florence Devouard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failure to meet the General Notability Guideline. This biography came up in a Wikipediocracy thread as an "inside baseball" type BLP of a former chair of the WMF Trustees which is not supported or supportable by substantial coverage in multiple, independently-published sources of presumed reliability. After a glance at the first 100 or so responses in a Google search, I tend to agree with this assessment. No strong feelings here, I leave the matter of decision to the community — I just don't want to be accused of looking the other way on a WP insider's bio. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Randy Framboise/Carrite, who said it better than I ever could. Grill power! Roberta Benigni (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not understanding the "Grill" power remark, but I guess I don't have to. This bio fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Tried to find something that was in depth but came up empty. I am willing to change my !vote if someone can show me different. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do see significant passing mention in Lih's The Wikipedia Revolution. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep She appears in numerous books in her role as Foundation head and was knighted by the French government for this. She therefore passes WP:PROF. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Andrew D. is vastly likely a troll account, given recent form. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's so cruel. He's lovely. And he likes to keep things. Your a hayter and you make me cry. Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - HERE is the link for Lih's book, which counts as 1 towards GNG for my money. I see that she was interviewed for the book Connective Branding by Claudia Fisher and Christine Vallaster, but that strikes me as mere passing mention. What else is out there? Carrite (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Lih's book is not enough for me, and would be a very poor test. Per nom and navel gazing. I don't see much difference in deleting this now, or in a year's time, voting to salt "Tim from Davenport" or wherever. But per Tim from Davenport in this earth shaking vote. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing Nomination — Speedy Keep — SNG for "All Biographies" No. 1 indicates a keep based on: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Her biography on French Wikipedia points to THIS which indicates that on May 16, 2008, Ms. Devouard was awarded the national award "Chevalier of the Ordre national du Mérite," which would seem to suffice... "Mme Devouard, née Nibart (Florence, Jacqueline, Sylvie), présidente d'une fondation mondiale ; 15 ans d'activités professionnelles." is the official wording. So while the keep argument based on GNG is very, very borderline, this is actually a fairly definite SNG Keep. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see the same document is already in the English footnotes, too, as fn 9. My bad. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Navel gazing. Inside baseball. No notability outside wikipedia. Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave it up to Florence, as we did for Kevin. We extend this favour to Wikipedians with marginal notability. (Not marginally notable non-Wikipedians, though. We take care of our own.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? If she is notable, then she is notable. Giving a "Wikipedian" special favors when it comes to notability and not others speaks wonders for the "integrity" of Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I take the opposite view. If the subject is marginally notable (whether or not they're a Wikipedia insider) we should take into account their feelings on the matter. But yes, we should be consistent. If we extend this courtesy to insiders, we should treat non-Wikipedians with the same level of respect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. I see no reason "not" to take the opinion into consideration, but I do not feel that they get to decide their own inclusion, especially when they are a Wikipedian. This is only going to cause negativity for Wikipedia which already comes under fire for its editing issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's a really horrible idea to let WP content (or lack thereof) be controlled by the subjects themselves. There should be a brick wall between the whims of subjects and the actual content of the encyclopedia. Anthony and I have disagreed on this vehemently for a long time and will continue to disagree vehemently on this. We are not here for "courtesy content for marginally notable people." Notable is notable. Non-notable is non-notable. Now somebody needs to shut this sucker down, the nomination is withdrawn. Carrite (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2015 (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.