Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maîtresse Françoise


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Maîtresse Françoise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BIO Lotus 50 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For the next time, please remember: WP:BEFORE is also policy here. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article defiantly needs help, but that's not the issue here. If you look at the French WP article Mistress Françoise, it's pretty clear the notability guidelines are met. --John B123 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources are provided in the article on the French project, of which the nominator is fully aware, since he participates at the article's talk page there, where he says he finds "most issues resolved" . &#8212;&#8239;Racconish&#8239;&#128172; 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If sources exist on the French article, they should be added here so that they can be evaluated as the existence on another project is not in itself a reason to keep anything. That being said, in my brief search, I found nothing in the way of in depth coverage but I'm withholding my vote until further sources are added. Praxidicae (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. As said by Racconish, the article wants to be enhanced, not deleted. I am not a number (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment See also es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Maîtresse Françoise, fr:Discussion:Maîtresse Françoise/Suppression and fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs. &#8212;&#8239;Racconish&#8239;&#128172; 18:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit like xwiki vote brigading considering the only three editors commenting on any of them are the same three here (including nom.) Praxidicae (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It probably came from a comment on the french article talk page where expressed his surprise to notice AfDs in several languages all of a sudden. Regards; Comte0 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, the nominator know deems the French article satisfactory, which seems to imply he considers the issue here is not the notability per se. &#8212;&#8239;Racconish&#8239;&#128172; 09:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unknown person. --Shev123 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:IDONTKNOWIT: I don't know her either, but this is not what WP:GNG requires. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Admittedly, this unexpected theme might presumptively be considered as a bit “taboo” or at least somewhat sensitive and potentially “on the edge”. Furthermore, some orbital aspects should rather be dealt with caution. However, this honorable lady enjoys an obvious fame among her elitist circle. In addition, she has been invited to participate in several well-known TV & radio broadcasts—among which are France Culture, TF1, La Cinq, France 3, A2, Canal Plus and so on— as a foremost expert facing those specific topics. This said, compared to → current original version in French, some part of Spanish and English translations would benefit from being enhanced with subsidiary sources as well as additional reliable references. Those addenda might contribute to better buttress, consolidate and underpin the textual substrate of the whole. On the other hand, it appears to me that the notability and the “cultural” interest relating to such a relevant topic should definitely be prone to deserve a warm welcome within the crucible of an encyclopedia whose main didactic goal is supposedly aimed to remain focused on the enthusiastic greeting regarding any instructional pedestal, though out of the ordinary. Such a judicious choice might then offer several interesting benefits by allowing each reader to access a higher level of panoramic knowledge while spreading one of the many nuclei of compilative flows amidst heart of universal gnosis. Sincerely, — euphonie (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC) / 00:38, 00:46, 02:18, 12:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC) / 15:08, 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC) / 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. There may be a way to write a decent article about this person, however the current text is hopeless: totally unsourced material that sounds like badly-translated jargon. Attempts by the subject herself to interfere are unhelpful, and I can't make sense of 's lyrical defense above. To be clear: there is certainly "cultural interest" among readers and editors for people involved in the BDSM scene, and for authors discussing this subject. The question we need to answer first is: where are the multiple secondary sources independent from the subject that would satisfy WP:BASIC notability criteria for this sassy Lady? Judging by the list of her writings, which is today the bulk of the article contents, she does not pass any of the WP:AUTHOR criteria #1–4. I can't see her passing WP:ANYBIO either. What else do we have? I checked the French sources: most are brief quotes, anecdotal mentions or promotional pieces; some do not even mention her name. Sorry, not worth the effort to bring them here. — JFG talk 02:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * to which a good reply is Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. You must also take into account sources which are not in the wikipedia articles. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not my job to dig out better sources than what fans of the subject have already been able to find, sorry. — JFG talk 11:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not my job to dig out better sources than what fans of the subject have already been able to find, sorry. — JFG talk 11:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well known in medias : radio, television and in books Mike Coppolano (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources from L'Obs, France Culture make her pass WP:GNG. There are also sources which are not available on the web, I can look them up at the library if need be. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out those sources, that I had by the way already seen in the French article. The piece in L'Obs is a brief book review for the subject's book, but not every author is notable: we need to abide by WP:NAUTHOR and this author is far from passing the bar. The France Culture bit is radio commentary by Maîtresse Françoise and Cécile Guilbert about the Venus in Fur movie by Polanski. That is not a source about Maîtresse Françoise, therefore it does not qualify for general notability. I'd be happy to see the offline sources you are alluding to. — JFG talk 11:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. She was featured on France Culture and I tried contacting their ombudswoman, asking for them to have a look in their archives, but I got no reply. Perhaps there is a better way to contact them. I'll be able to go to the library next week end. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Having said which, the article needs substantial improvement. -- The Anome (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Current sources prima facie satisfy WP:GNG. William Avery (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2018 (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.