Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myriam Joire (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Myriam Joire
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person which makes a potentially valid claim of notability, but fails to adequately source it — as written, this relies entirely on primary sources, with not even one remotely reliable source cited in the entire article. And even a Google News search is turning up lots of coverage in blogs, and virtually none in the kind of sources it takes to get a person past our inclusion rules. First discussion was a no-consensus close, for the record — but that lack of consensus hinged on disagreement about whether the claim of notability was substantive at all, and failed to address the more significant issue (i.e. the lack of quality sourcing to support her notability). No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly, but the sourcing on display here is nowhere near the level it takes to get a person into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Keep, notable writer/ senior mobile editor/whatever at engadget (also did a podcast there). Wonder if OP looked up "tnkgrl" which the subject is better known by:. They appeared on TWiT as well as various other podcasts here and there. Google News has plenty of coverage for "myriam" and "tnkgrl" (tnkgrl). Used to be a dev at dolby. -- dsprc   [talk]  02:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even in that list of sources, I'm still not seeing a wealth of publications that count as appropriately reliable sources that can confer notability on a WP:BLP. Wired is about the only acceptable source in the entire bunch, actually — and even it's a blurb which is nowhere near long or detailed enough to carry a person's notability all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * TechCrunch, Ars Technica, Hackaday and GigaOm are reliable sources. As for notability, Joire was Senior Editor for mobile at engadget (AOL) where they wrote hundreds of articles for years. Their hardware hacking activities have been covered by numerous sources and their position with Pebble has gained even more coverage and notoriety. Google News provides plenty of sources as well and is linked at the top of every AfD. But, I guess PC Magazine, The Inquirer, Barron's, Fast Company, NPR, The Daily Telegraph, EE Times (where Joire is seemingly notable enough to directly question Qualcomm Senior VP about her assertions) are all just fly-by-night operations as well. -- dsprc   [talk]  12:47, 9 February 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.