Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle Claes

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The result was nomination withdrawn as the article has seen improvement. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Gabrielle Claes

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Gabrielle Claes (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)

Unreferenced article about a person notable only as conservator of an archive and purportedly making a small cameo appearance in a film -- but the latter claim isn't even verified by her IMDb profile, let alone any reliable sources that would actually count toward establishing notability for it, and the former claim isn't referenced at all. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they've had jobs; the notability test is the reception of media coverage about their work to establish that it's been externally validated as significant. But even in the French article, three of the four footnotes are dead links I haven't been able to recover, and the only live link is just a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in an article whose core subject is her successor in the archive job, so there's still no clear evidence that she would pass WP:GNG.
And for added bonus, the article's been tagged for sourcing and notability questions since 2010 without ever being improved at all, and according to that glancing namecheck source she left the archive job in 2011 without the article ever being updated to say that until I saw that source just now.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived European media coverage than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep As it existed, the article did not provide enough information to establish notabolity. I have added in details (with citations) about her work with the archive, international groups involved in film preservation, and awards she has received. There seem to be more articles that I cannot access in European papers, but I feel I have added enough to fend off deletion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

One addition - I found a citation for her appearance in the film, but I think that qualifies more as a curio. She is not at all known as an actress, instead she works on the preservation of films. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that's better. Thanks for that, and consider this withdrawn as promised. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.