Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serge Monast

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 KEEP. At this point, with no further comments seemingly forthcoming, a well-sourced article that satisfies WP:N is not something that should be deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Monast

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

BLP (edit: not living) of no significant importance; sources self-published. A conspiracy theorist with a very small following and ideas covered far less than fringe ideas such as lizard people & thetans. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only reputable reference discusses general photonic weaponry principles, nothing of Monast R3ap3R.inc (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor, but not only self-published, per reprints after his death. Main source is Pierre-André Taguieff, a respectable academic third-party source, whose works are not as represented by the nominator either. (The "notes" are not the main sources, hence the different header.) Nominator was asked to discuss qualms on the article talk page, but chose not to discuss - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:34, 2 January 2011 (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.