Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Françoise Moréchand


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Françoise Moréchand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable manager/fashionista; Google News returns jack and shit, and Jack's on vacation (string: "Francoise Morechand"), and the main source this article relies on has been blatantly plagiarised from three times; the only other source is a noted press release. I'm not seeing anything, sourcing-wise, to satisfy notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --  Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --  Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --  Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The nomination doesn't convince me; I noticed this because I cleaned up after the last copyvio. At first glance this seems to be another case of the difficulty of completing WP:BEFORE if not versed in the language. In this case most sources would be expected to appear in Japanese with the search string "フランソワーズ・モレシャン", not to mention that most of the appearances that made the subject notable predated the internet, which makes it harder to access them. And others are in French, such as references to her book 1990s La gaïjine. However, note possible sources like this or this guest appearance on Tetsuko no heya or this reference to her as Foreign Trade Consultant to the French Government and International Advisor to the Kanazawa 21st Century Art Museum, and I'm not sure why the Japan Times article is being discounted. We don't punish article subjects because some editor chose to add copyvios to preexisting articles. Dekimasu よ! 02:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So what does come up when you do use that string? If the sources under it are decent, I'm more than happy to rescind the AfD, but at present there isn't much, and I don't trust automated translations for South or East Asian languages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I'm not discounting the Japan Times article, but it's the only good source I am aware of at the moment. The latter source is a name-drop at best (I think), but I am not in any position to assess the other two sources, not being able to read/speak Japanese. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 03:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I asked about this article at WT:JAPAN and WT:WOMEN prior to it being AfD'd. I felt that the article had some significant issues, particularly with respect to content recently added by a recent good-faith edit spurt by and added some maintainence templates to reflect these concerns. I didn't dig deep enough, however, to notice the copyvios which were subsequently revdeleted. My original assessment is that Moréchand is probably notable per WP:BIO, WP:NTEMP and WP:NEXIST, but finding sources to support a claim of notability may be a bit difficult for the reasons given by  above.I also feel that while there's nothing wrong trying to improve an article being discussed at AfD in good-faith, it seems recent edits by Ukunsumo re-adding of unsourced content and various MOS:MOS errors is not really helping things out and actually moving the article in the wrong direction. Creating more things to clean up and may actually make it easier for others to see deletion as the only real alternative here. In my opinion, we should be doing the opposite and trimming out as much unsourced content as possible and cleaning up the layout/formatting as best as we can to make the article at least seem viable as a stub. Content can always be added (re-added) when reliable sources are found which can be cited in support. I am well aware of WP:ARTN and WP:OVERCOME; so, I'm not suggesting that making things all nice and pretty will be sufficient for keeping the article. At the same time, there's also no need to make the article worse (even if done unintentionally and in good faith). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Mild keep: I know nothing about her, but I have lived in Japan a long time, so I have heard of her. In any ordinary sense of the word I would think this confers "notability". Imaginatorium (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a specific definition of the term. —A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)RR


 * Keep: I've added some content with citation to the French Embassy in Tokyo, as well as two of her more famous books and an external link to a tribute. The article still needs some attention to too-closely paraphrased text, as well as citations, but the subject meets WP:GNG.  Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.