Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliette Rossant

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus among established editors that she does not meet biographic notability standards Star Mississippi 03:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Rossant[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Juliette Rossant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article sourced almost entirely to subjects own articles in Forbes and alumni magazines. Lacks independent secondary sources covering the subject sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, and falls far short of the requirements of WP:JOURNALIST. Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added a reference but yes this article needs a lot of changes. I also think this subject is notable and the article can be kept if changes are done and notable reference are added. FBedits (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if the book reviews that are elicited here exist. I didn’t see links. But assuming good faith that they exist. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found one other book review: Money Toques. By: Smillie, Dirk, Forbes, 00156914, 4/19/2004, Vol. 173, Issue 8 (note that she wrote or writes for Forbes magazine). I can't get to Gastronimica, but the reviews I did see, including "First Meals, Then Deals", which is listed here, are all pretty brief. Oddly, the Publisher's Weekly review pans the book, calling it: "This plodding group biography traces the careers and personal lives of chefs..." I find nothing about HER in any independent sources. The majority of sources here are not independent. Lamona (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nomination. The "Career" section consists of an unsourced recitation of the subject's journalism career, and padded text on the "Super Chefs" book. The added reviews do not contribute to notability as observed by Lamona, The "magazine" subsection relates to a personal website that has been inactive since 2017. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The numerous citations added subsequent to my !vote, (such as footnote nos. 14-23) show Rossant being quoted. They are citations to articles about other people, I'll not remove them but these are trivial mentions that do not belong in the article and do not establish notability. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following major overhaul – not only shorter text but numerous citations to books, magazines, and newspapers that document notability as expert; previous voters, please be sure to re-read entry and re-vote - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems pretty noteworthy to me, article seems fine, and notability is clear when subject is cited as expert to publications like New York Times and TIME Magazine. Raffmeiste (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: original article from 2006 now revised 2022 with major overhaul: text is shorter, more encyclopedic, and contains up-to-date citations (scholarly books, popular books, magazines, newspapers) that document subject's notability as expert - Aboudaqn (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Looks plenty notable to me! - Bobo1926 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC) — Bobo1926 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just to reiterate so I'm kept in this round, I do think this article is noteworthy and meets all criteria for being kept. The subject is being cited in large publications, and this article should stay around. Raffmeiste (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Lacking indepth coverage of her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't know what went on above with the SPA's, but I don't see this person being notable. The article seems in a better position right now compared to how it was before the nomination, but I can still clearly see WP:REFBOMB attempts. Per WP:SIGCOV, merely "being cited" isn't enough, and without significant coverage there is no sign of a GNG pass. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:33, 4 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Juliette_Rossant&oldid=1076046138"