Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilles Baroin

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Baroin[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability of the subject. He is neither a notable academic nor a notable creative professional. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think this does meet GNG, even if they aren't considered notable under specific guidelines. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any actual evidence that he meets GNG? There's certainly nothing in the article itself to suggest that WP:ACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE are not the appropriate standards of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His highest score at Scholar is... 2 citations. Tkuvho (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless evidence of notability is provided (e.g., major prizes or honors received by him), this should be deleted. Ebony Jackson (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the sources presented in the article are good enough for WP:GNG, and there is also no evidence he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the upbeat tone of the article, no real evidence of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 2 January 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.