Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Coquelin

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Coquelin[edit]

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

prod contested because editor felt that there being an article in French was enough to show wiki worthiness. I proded originally because it has been 2 1/2 years and all anyone has been able to say is that he is an economist. Literally everyone alive or dead would be wiki worthy if all you needed to do was say the person existed. Maybe this will provide the impetus for someone to expand the article. But as it is now, goodbye! Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have made some extension to the article (though it remains a stub), including 3 book references. See also the multiple references to the subject by Léon Walras in his "Elements of Theoretical Economics". Between that and the unintegrated text on the French Wikipedia page, there is enough to confirm notability. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Clearly notable from the French-language article and the new refs added by AllyD. Bondegezou (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I am concerned, what the French article says is irrelevant to a great extent. Not only am I not sure I can easily access it, even if I did access it, I don't understand French so what that article says is useless. It is what this article says. If this article shows notability then keep. But potential alone, especially after 2 1/2 years, is not wiki worthy and it should go. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:GNG. There is no requirement that sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found multiple sources – some in English – with a quick search. He passes general notability even if the article needs some expansion and possibly help from someone who is a subject specialist so that his theories can be explained. Libby norman (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David, just to clarify. I did NOT mean sources when I mentioned that I do not understand French. I meant the article on this person on French wiki. I was able to find it and the only part I understood was his birthday and the day he died. So the only way I can have a credible opinion on the subject is based on what is written here, in the English version. Which, BTW, is improving. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just run it through an online translator. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator seems to misunderstand the purpose of AfD, which is to determine notability not to improve articles, and also the fact that notability is not based solely on what's currently written in an article. It does seem that this individual is notable, and that's all that matters. The length of the article at present is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I totally understand. Perhaps I was not clear enough or perhaps I was and Necrothesp simply needs to reread what I said. To simply say he is a French economist is not wiki worthy and I had my doubts anyone would improve it after all that time idle. That said, if this inspired someone to do some research and found something notable, I would not be upset if the article was not deleted. I call that being flexible, not clueless. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2014 (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.