Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Questionable notability, insufficient material to demonstrate WP:NOTE. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - over 40,000 Ghits; two reliable sources in English already are in the stub; some indication of notability. Rescue. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added additional information, citations, and categories. She seems to pass WP:GNG easily. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * as an admin, you should know that WP:GOOGLEHITS is an invalid argument. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As my students would say, "My bad." How about the sources and links that I've added? How about the listing in Who's Who in France? Bearian (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you see 73 results. The first is from the New York Times who quotes her, having interviewed her in the headquarters of the organization she runs.    D r e a m Focus  22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Dubious notability, only claim is CEO of company which doesn't seem particularly notable itself. This is how an article gets rescued. There's some cleanup needed in terms of reading too much like an ad, but this is what a good cleanup and rescue looks like. Keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron. Snotty Wong   express 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GHITS arguments aside, the sources are not convincing at this point. Of all the sources in the article, the only that has significant coverage of this individual is a press release.  The rest are primarily about her company and only mention her in passing, or have a very brief quote from her.  Snotty Wong   express 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I read what I could of some of the French language articles, such as at Le nouvel Economiste, and they contain extensive interviews of her, including her astrological sign, education, experience, and likes and dislikes. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also added an English language article from Ad Age, a top marketing publication. Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly more notable than a lot of existing unchallenged bios. Wikipedia is trying to be more attractive to women; deleting such articles defeats the purpose. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For your first point, mind WP:WAX. In regards to your second, Wikipedia can't be changing it's standards to appeal to other groups. That's a misguided effort that would be a detriment to the encyclopedia as a whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Standards also include not keeping a lot of poorly sourced articles that some large group of people like while trying to delete even better sourced ones that a smaller group of people might like. The fact that an article was willing to improve the article is important, especially since just following search links show there's lots more info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Yaksar's point is that we shouldn't base our standards of inclusion on such things like "Group XYZ would be upset if this article were deleted" or "Editor XYZ spent a lot of time trying to improve the article" (i.e. WP:MERCY). The primary standard of inclusion is WP:GNG, all other external considerations are largely immaterial.  Snotty Wong   squeal 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are always unconscious assumptions and prejudices that some subjects of bios are NOT notable even if have 5-6 major WP:RS and others ARE even if only have one WP:RS. So occasionally making sure people are looking at their own assumptions help. Believe me, I've got a lot of conscious assumptions I'd love to act on and delete a bunch of bios much more poorly sourced than this, but I've got self control. (In fact there are three vanity ones with little or no WP:RS I'd like deleted now, but I've criticized the people in past off wiki so I feel I have a conflict of interest. Contact me and we'll talk if your looking to do some deleting.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, as meeting the Heymann standard. The subject's notability is clearly indicated by the sources now added. Kudos to Bearian for taking this from a one sentence stub to a decent article.  -- Lear's Fool 13:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources that have been added to the article over the course of this AfD clearly show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thereby proving notability. Jenks24 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2011 (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.