Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Ney

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 --JForget 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Ney[edit]

This page was started by User:Columbano, a single-purpose account with the probable intention of self-glorification of the subject as well as providing links to his personal websites (see here). The subject is a French "journalist" who has written in several French magazines, but there is precious little written about him. There appears to be no material about him in the language of William Shakespeare. Of the French sources available, some appear to fail WP:RS, and many link to the subject's own website. In addition, there have been recent attempts, possibly by the subject or his proxies, to remove material which is potentially damaging to him. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being a conflict of interest is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Having checked the sources, I believe this person (just about) passes the notability requirements for biographies. Terraxos (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. As long as people will use Wikipedia as a self-promotion tool, there will be a credibility problem. Please remember that the same self-promotion page in the French Wikipedia was deleted ([1]) after the exact same problems happened (extreme self-glorification, self-citation, immediate removal of anything seen as critical, insults flying around, legal threats, etc). The guy is quite famous in France, not as a journalist, but as the worst possible sort of internet troll ever. Guillermito (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete – I agree with Guillermito and Sc straker. --JamesJJames (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if there is doubt, a better article can be resubmitted later. --Revanche (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2008 (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.