Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanović: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Malcolmxl5 (talk | contribs) Closing debate, result was delete |
Malcolmxl5 (talk | contribs) clarify. |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
||
The result was '''delete'''. Putting aside the question of the number of Google hits, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, there is consensus that the secondary sources/3rd party sources that are needed to |
The result was '''delete'''. Putting aside the question of the number of Google hits, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, there is consensus that the secondary sources/3rd party sources that are needed to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are lacking. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
===[[Pierre Jovanović]]=== |
===[[Pierre Jovanović]]=== |
||
Revision as of 21:38, 1 March 2016
- 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. Putting aside the question of the number of Google hits, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, there is consensus that the secondary sources/3rd party sources that are needed to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are lacking. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pierre Jovanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of secondary sources available, there is only 162 results in Google for this BLV, and no article in national press or any exploitable reliable reference to source the bibliography. Dereckson (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Google Search about Pierre Jovanović: 162 results
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- The argument according to which a "Pierre Jovanović" Google search only gives 162 results is a particularly dishonest one. The accentuated "ć" character is NOT used in France or in French. The same Google search conducted with a plain "c" instead of a "ć" gives 234 000 results. Pierre Jovanovic is a well-known French writer, polemicist and financial analyst. He has published many best-selling books. His French page is regularly attacked because of his dissenting views on politics or on financial matters. - preceding comment added by 82.224.192.226 in Revision as of 12:25, 28 February 2016
- Comment: An equivalent discussion on the French Wikipedia in August 2014 led to deletion: [1]. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete: The subject continues to be active journalistically (with contributions to the Equality and Reconciliation site: [2]) and does have books translated into languages other than French (though I would want to see independent evidence for best-seller status rather than just the introduction to a website interview). However I am not seeing the reliable 3rd party coverage needed to meet the biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete : inexistence of focused secondary sources. Then Equality and Reconciliation is not considered as a reliable or notable media. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.