Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aglaée Degros

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aglaée Degros[edit]

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

Business promotion article full of puff, purporting to be about professor but really about professors business. Fails WP:NPROF. Low citation count on Google Scholar. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Not notable enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC Coderzombie (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites on GS are 17, 3, 3. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Not enough else for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Article is certainly PROMO in nature, but subject appears to fail notability criteria. Her book shows 150 holdings in WorldCat, but when I looked closer, it is an edited volume, not a standalone monograph authored by Degros. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The puff has now been removed by Dr Eppstein and as such she is head of the Institute at a major university and is now worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The puff may be gone but she still fails WP:PROF. Her publications are not heavily cited enough for criterion C1, and her administrative position (head of an institute, not head of an entire university) is too low for C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 18 June 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.