Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idriss Aberkane (2nd nomination)

Idriss Aberkane

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

There is not "significant coverage" for the article subject: a Google search gives only 229 results, including resume ("CV"), a video download site and articles written directly by the subject. Furthermore, this last remark leads to the lack of source "independent of the subject". See WP:N.

The article contravenes Wikipedia:Verifiability: no of the statement, a lot tagged citation needed, could be verified, by lack of reliable and independant secondary sources.

Yet, the article has presented this person as a major 21th century "philosopher". A previous AfD has been opened but couldn't reached a consensus, as it were spoiled by sockpuppet to keep, and sockuppet to delete. This casts serious doubt on the motivation of the presence of the article, this could be a case for self-promotion and publicity. See WP:SPIP.

For all these reasons, I would like to resubmit this article for deletion. Dereckson (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dereckson (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources I listed in the previous AfD [1] [2] are good enough for WP:GNG and don't find the nomination rationale persuasive — if the strongest criticism you can make of the actual subject (rather than our in-need-of-cleanup article) is to put his profession in scare quotes, you don't have a strong argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the quotes are because French medias use the word philosopher for pundit, and not for someone who has a degree in philosophy or publishes in the philosophy field. Indeed, if that were the only issue, that would be an issue of cleaning the article and states correctly the fact, not a matter for deletion. --Dereckson (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "The geeks shall inherit the earth" is an article not centred on the article subjet, but on a unique talk. It's doesn't allow to cover the subject, as the article doesn't give any bibliographical information (excepted a talk has been given). « Idriss Aberkane, l'accoucheur des " geeks " de Gâtine » has a title more promising. We can source with this article the basic bibliography facts (« Né en 86 dans le Val de Marne », followed by studies), the field (« biologie théorique ») but then, the article is about coaching of an high school fact.
  So the notability is asserted by two press articles about a talk given in one town, and a high school class coached on a project. I'm not convinced that's enough to establish notability. --Dereckson (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof. GS cites are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see two major articles about him in Le Monde. , That's enough to meet the GNG for anyone at all. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which two you meant, but for anyone else who's also curious, I found three articles in Le Monde discussing his work: [3] [4] [5]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentions, otherwise public relations flim-flam. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, and per lack of reliable 3rd party coverage. ––Dereckson (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and userfy as a compromise as the article may have potential and improvements but this would need time and work, and the article has not yet been improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dereckson and Xxanthippe are right here. Preaky (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the 1st round. There is nothing to improve, no reliable source of any kind. Self-promotion is proven. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]