Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir De Thézier (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir De Thézier[edit]

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

The page was nominated for a Fail WP:GNG in 2011 but was kept for reasons that I don't consider correct. Apart from the fact that this person is totally unknown in Quebec (no page on the same subject in the French-language Wikipedia), the qaulity of the sources leavec much to be desired. For example, in many cases the Pro-Quebec Independence website Vigile is used as a source, even if anybody can anonymously publish an article in it. Also, other sources simply mention his name in passing. There is also some ambiguity with the name "Justice De Thézier"; it is not clear whether this is one and the same person. --132.204.184.199 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 21:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eliminate the soft verbs (discovered, advocated, embraced, promoted, contributed, explored) from this resume and there is very little left. --Lockley (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying again to generate some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- despite the over-abundance of references, the article fails to establish notability. The subject has not accomplished anything of significance. Being a board member of a minor org and a blogger for Huffington post are not exactly claims to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 9 July 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.