Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Martin (Wikimedia)[edit]

Nathalie Martin (Wikimedia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IMO, Nathalie Martin does not meet the notability criterias, because no large-scale source focuses on her, and she is just mentioned in a few articles. NAH 18:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nomination. His WD item would suffice. NAH 18:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was written by Punishar who is an employee of Mrs Martin. He didn't mention his conflits of interests and therefore doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Nathalie Martin is CEO of a 10 people association... (Ok Wikimedia France that of course we are keen of) but that's not enough to create an article about her. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course. --Shev123 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably an A7 candidate, if it was any other organisation than Wikimedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : This article was written by Punishar who is employee of Mrs Martin. --Ctruongngoc (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guil2027 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:PAID/WP:COI violation. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person does not meet the notability criteria. Furthermore the article has been created in violation of WP:COI. --Lebob (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Availability of reliable sources? Not at all! => deletion. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails to meet our notability criteria. Edwardx (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the notability criteria. Trace (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet the quality criterion. Malosse (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unknown with a self-made article ! Sg7438 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for few months. The very existence of this article (and the way it is written) is part of a controversy about how the "Wikimedia France Association" is functionning/dysfunctionning. A too early suppression would result into helping a controversial person to cover her tracks. This should not be done. Pldx1 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add, if RS consider this controversy notable fine, they do not. Thus it is not a notable controversy, thus she is not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not until the WMF has cleaned up the mess with WikimediaFrance, this article is a good example of the way some people in this association play with the rules, and not for the health of the chapter but their own purpose...--Cbyd (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am unaware of "the mess with WikimediaFrance", can anyone fill me in? - GretLomborg (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone sent me a timeline of events (in French), and what I could make out (via Google Translate) sounds pretty bad. While I don't want to help someone up to no good cover their tracks, are there any options besides keeping this article to do that? This article is just one event in a constellation of behavior, could an investigation against the offending users be done? At a minimum its sounds like User:R.wi.go and User:Punishar could be sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I know how to initiate a sock-puppet investigation, but I don't if there's a way to initiate some kind of more-general WP:COI investigation. I'm probably not the person to do either of these things. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(for info) - An English version of that timeline can be found here. Not greatly relevant to the AfD but in case anyone else is wondering what's going on. The Land (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but it looks less complete than the French one (probably for obvious reasons). It's missing the entry that discussed the bio that we're currently AfD'ing. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Check User tools for Sock-puppetry investigation can only check edit less than 3 months old... They can't be used to check any link here. Anyway it does not matter: this article should not be analysed in the context of anything linked with the Wikimedia France Association controversy. The only question that matters right now for Wikipedia is to check if the topic of this article (ie Nathalie Martin) is notorious enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Both problems should not be mixed. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2017 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nathalie_Martin_(Wikimedia)

Leave a Reply