Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francoise Cherry-Cohen

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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francoise Cherry-Cohen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. My reasoning at PROD still applies: 'Just having a job in the television industry isn't enough - what has she actually done that is notable? I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources.' The-Pope (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. What's next, an article about the janitor? Qworty (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: It's bothersome enough that the PROD was removed with but the cryptic "rm PROD after restoration" for explanation, but quite disturbing that an admin did that. In the meantime, the top end G-hits for her is this article, her IMDB article, her Linkedin article, her Facebook articles ... There are zero G-news hits for her, and zero evidence of passing the GNG or any other notability criteria. My bafflement as to the grounds for contesting the prod is total. Ravenswing 15:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. Check the logs and read WP:PROD. It was PRODded, deleted (by myself) after 7 days, then contested at WP:REFUND and thus restored (as it happens, again by myself) in accordance with the policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had occasion to read it over the years, thanks. That being said, it wasn't your good faith I was questioning. Hanging the term "procedural" off of your edit summary just might have been a tipoff that removing a prod tag from the restored article was, in fact, procedural, and provoked fewer questions. Ravenswing 19:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The evidence for notability is not zero. As I note below, she has been nominated twice for an ADG Excellence in Production Design Award twice which is at least arguable for point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A janitor? Sure if he is a notable one. As for the subject of this article, she has been nominated a couple of times for an award but not one any, and coupled with the lack of any coverage, this is not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2010 (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.