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. Deletion argument failed to convince me how this would fail our notability guideline as per WP:N or WP:BIO. While the coverage of the subject is not great enough to turn this into a FA/GA, there's is minimal enough coverage to meet the guidelines for WP:N. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 12:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Florence Devouard

Florence Devouard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is nominated for deletion since subject is not notable outside of her Wikimedia involvement and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No favoritism should be displayed to insiders no matter how senior. Mohsinpathania ( talk) 15:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC) — Mohsinpathania ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment - For those of you keeping score at home, this is actually the 4th nomination of an article on this topic. Please see the article's talk page for a complete list. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - as WP:ANYBIO:-

1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- Awarded the rank of chavalier by the president of France here as "présidente d'une fondation mondiale ; 15 ans d'activités professionnelles"
2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
- présidente d'une fondation mondiale - as above citation

Moreover, I find it difficult to Assume good faith:-

This nomination is malformed, and incorrect, as it is the 4th nomination, not the third
This nomination is not listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10
This nomination was started by an editor as their second edit, and occurred immediately after an IP had removed most of the references from the article. - Arjayay ( talk) 17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: DELETE A withdrawn nomination must be treated as null (as though it never happened). The nomination was listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10, see [1]. I nominated this article after locating this on internete En:WP article for Florence Devouard while searching for more sources for Wikipedia Sucks keyword.
  WP:ANYBIO is not satisfied. The "appointment" (not award) of chevalier given to this person is a relatively insignificant and ordinary badge and in the lowest possible grade, ("You call these baubles, well, it is with baubles that men are led"-Napoleon). The 2nd part is also not satisfied, such a person will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. Mohsinpathania ( talk) 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I struck your delete !vote, as that is implied with your nomination. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: Since the previous nominator was unduly influenced to withdraw his nomination despite strong sentiment to delete, I have also nominated Mutant Pop Records for deletion. PS. Website owner - There is some software bug in your template "subst:afd3", kindly correct it. Mohsinpathania ( talk) 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• I haven't looked into any other aspects of notability, but I certainly don't believe that being a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite goes any way towards conferring notability on its own. That is roughly equivalent to being an MBE in the UK, but it is generally accepted that a subject needs to be at least two levels higher in the order, a CBE, before that honour is considered to be notability-granting. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep based on the impropriety of the nomination. Cf. WP:SKCRIT point 2. I do not make such an accusation lightly, but I believe it's necessary and justified in this case. The nominator's contributions to English Wikipedia raise questions: few new users begin their editing careers by nominating multiple articles for deletion. But far more troubling is his record on Commons, where, two days before bringing this AfD, he was blocked indefinitely as an account "used exclusively for disruption" (emphasis added).  Rebb ing  05:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: You are mistaken Sir. I was clearly blocked on Commons for requesting a deletion for monkey selfie image. My ground was that the EXIF data (Copyyright Management Information) had been stripped out in breach of USC code by a Commons bureuacrat and sysop to misrepresent that the image was authored in 2011, and not 2008 as published on NBCNEWS.COM. I am presently in active correspondence with your Websites legal counsel over this block and related issues, and certain clarifications have already been provided to me by Shri Rogers (Legal Counsel for Wikipedia). I am not at all describable as a vandal or disruptive person for pointing out breaches of Foundation Terms of Usage and US laws applicable to your esteemed website,and I am not in any edit war on your website. Mohsinpathania ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: since allegation has been leveled against me by @Rebbing, I find very curious this first edit of @Rebbing's account. PETA are of course the persons behind the monkey selfie law suit, and my accuser seems to have an undisclosed COI Mohsinpathania ( talk) 07:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I explained above that being a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite, is not enough to confer notability, and I can't find any independent reliable sources that actually write anything substantial about Florence Devouard rather than just quote her. The claim above that the nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption is simply ridiculous, but my opinion here means that even if that was a valid claim WP:SKCRIT point 2 is no longer valid, because that point requires that "no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion". I am uninvolved and have now done that. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per WP:GNG and rational provided in previous nomination and subsequent withdrawal in 2015 by @ Carrite:. Hmlarson ( talk) 18:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per nom, and WP:BLP1E and research of UserIP-86.17.222.157. The French title itself is insignificant and trivial. The previous nomination was inconclusive and contained remarks like We extend this favour to Wikipedians with marginal notability. (Not marginally notable non-Wikipedians, though. We take care of our own) and then If we extend this courtesy to insiders, we should treat non-Wikipedians with the same level of respect. Is there now some binding policy either way that some Wikipedians are more notable than non-Wikipedians or other less insider Wikipedians ? Luridaxiom ( talk) 09:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Luridaxiom ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

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.