Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myriam Joire


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Myriam Joire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability guidelines. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards keep per WP:BARE. She was an important editor and content provider at Engadget, and a "well respected tech blogger" .  While it's difficult to find a lot of mainstream media about her, I think there's enough on blogs and tech websites to create a decent article. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Bearian. The "well respected tech blogger" citation is just someones comment on an interview video page (that doesn't even seem to involve the subject) and would be all considerations fail as a credible source. Further, all notability of the subject hinges on their employement by notable companies. I see no stand alone notability and am left wanting to label this article as a case of WP: HoleSulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Admitted, the stub is crappy. I can't rescue every article here. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ....Which is why I nominated it for deletion. WP:WSIC Sulfurboy (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I get it. Well, I've had my say.  Worse comes to worse, it can always be re-created when and if she becomes more notable. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 17:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. I think being the public face of Pebble implies notability. MRSC (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not think that being the chief spokesman for a company implies notability in any encyclopedic sense. Certainly there do ot sem to abe any referencesi n the article showing it. The importance of her earlier work does not seem to be demonstrated. I notice the complete absence of reliable third party references. And although she may describe her sexual orientation on her blog, it is not encyclopedic content unless it has some relationship to her notability or has been the subject of significant third party comment.   DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Her reviews are being picked up and used in news reports, such as, and  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:28, 13 November 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.