Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Collin


 * 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 delete. There's no point in re-listing this. Essentially, consensus boils down to "marginally notable, but the article in it's current state harms English Wikipedia by its quallity, and there's no good version to revert to." Therefore I judge consensus to be an "anti-salt" delete, the article can be re-created by an editor who cares about quality and NPOV, and appreciation should be extended to those editors who have gone through the trouble to research the topic found notability. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nathalie Collin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is the work of a paid editor on the French WP in violation of their rules, now translated into English by a paid editor, probably the same one, and added to by a single purpose account. The translation is a some places rather unidiomatic. The individual may be notable, because of the legion d'honneur, but in that case it would need re-writing from scratch, not based on the French version because that was written in violation of their rules, our rules, and the WMF terms of service. but the contents of this article resort to statements such as "in conjunction with other publishers "  "took part in negotiations", "supported [someone else's] proposal", "contributed to creating"  "cosigned", "participated".

Almost all previous work by the same editor has been deleted as either unsourced or copyvio.

Unfortunately, the timing is such that this can not be done as a speedy deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The Legion of Honor is notable, but the article was badly translated. Should be perhaps draftified until it's been re-written. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is horribly written. Leaving aside any translation errors, the overall tone is conversational amd unprofessional, and it could be much more concise.  That being said, the article claims that the subject was involved with a number of high-profile groups and interacted and collaborated with notable individuals.  At the very least it is worth hunting around for sources here WP:Before nominating for AfD.  Also, do we know for certain that the French version of the article, or the English translation, were actually created by paid accounts?  Because if I had a dollar for every time that accusation got thrown around...hmmmm, maybe that's not the most appropriate expression, but you get my point, I hope? Besides, it's irrelevant how the article got started, the subject herself couldhave written it while heavily intoxicated and that would still have no bearing on whether the subject is actually notable. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Commment we decided in at least one rfC not to automatically delete everything claimed to be by an undeclared paid editor, exactly because of the doubts that might be raised. Rather, it has to be shown to the satisfaction of the community, which is judged of course by consensus here at AfD. Read the article and use your judgment. If it should be deleted, and a good faith editor want to re-create it, that would remain possible. But there are two major basic reasonss for deletion besides ny, and they as strong or stronger, violations of the various provisions of WP:NOT, especially NOT ADVERTISING, and violation of the terms of use. The TOU are meaningless if we do not hold people to them.  DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of order, please see DEL-REASON for the list of acceptable reasons for deletion. I'm not trying to be snarky or insulting, seriously.  I agree with you that NOT is clearly listed as a valid reason for deletion.  But the terms of use are not a part of this.  We enforce the TOU through other measures (ANI, etc) directed at the user, with the goal of preventing further violations. I think that it is most productive to keep AfDs focused on DEL-REASONS. We've both seen AfDs devolve into accusations of UPE because an editor cannot imagine any other reason why a half dozen other editors would vote Keep on an article that they believe should obviously have been deleted.  I worry that half the AfDs are going to turn into Kangaroo Sock/UPE Courts at this rate (the other half, of course, will still involve cricketers and random street corners). Hyperion35 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At WP;DEL the first line reads "

Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view. Page blanking can be performed (or reverted) by any user, but only administrators can perform deletion, view deleted pages, and reverse ("undelete") any deletion. All such actions (other than viewing) are recorded in the deletion log, and deletion statistics are recorded at WP:Deletion statistics. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it.

Contents 1	Reasons for deletion 2	Alternatives to deletion 2.1	Editing and discussion 2.2	Tagging 2.3	Merging 2.4	Redirection 2.5	Incubation 2.6	Other projects 2.7	Archiving 3	Processes 3.1	Copyright violations 3.2	Speedy deletion 3.3	Proposed deletion 3.3.1	Proposed deletion of biographies of living people 3.4	Deletion discussion 3.5	Page deletion 3.6	Deletion of biographies and BLPs 3.7	Deletion review 3.7.1	Undeletion 4	Process interaction 5	Other issues 5.1	Access to deleted pages 5.2	Courtesy blanking of talkpage or deletion debates 5.3	Revision deletion 6	Notes 7	See also 1 Reasons for deletion [edit source | quick edit] Shortcuts WP:DEL-REASON WP:DEL#REASON See also: Wikipedia:Notability § Article content does not determine notability Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ". It has been decided that the community does not think violation of the TOU is grounds for speedy (and I agree--it needs a discussion), but otherwise the community can decide what is a valid reason. All it takes is consensus at afd. . Since rejection for not meeting the TOU requires a discussion,, here we are where we should be.  DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 11:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about anything else said above but would point out that the subject is a Chevalier in the Légion d'honneur, the lowest level of membership and roughly equivalent to a British MBE. This is well below the level at which WP:ANYBIO comes into play. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think being awarded the "Chevalier de l'ordre de la Légion d'honneur" would perhaps be enough, but it is awarded in various forms to about 800-1000 people a year, so is not fantastically prestigious, similar probably to an OBE, possibly an MBE. I think it is an executive doing her job. I'm wavering between Weak Keep and Weak Delete. The lack of sourcing in large sections points to it being puffed by the paid editor, which is confirmed and is likely a spam target in the future. There is no context as to why the subject is notable, but it is clear from the French she was president of EMI and large public quango. Leave it for weak keep.    scope_creep Talk  13:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The French article does provide proof of the two gongs.   scope_creep Talk  13:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you're providing good reason for permitting re-creation, otherwise known as WP:TNT.  DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT and per . If she paid for this mess, she got ripped off. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2021 (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.