Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Gertoux

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

Article was deleted in March, but was restored and userfied in June and returned to mainspace on June 21 with additional references. IMO subject is still not notable. His claims to fame are authorship of one book, and his unsuccessful attempt to get a PhD, which one source is publicizing as a religious freedom issue. But the sources cited do not amount to much and I can find nothing additional on searching. I do not feel he meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. BTW he does not have an article in the French wiki. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator makes a compelling case, and looking through the references, it's not clear to me that any of them are independent, reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used my access to Highbeam Research to check this guy out and got absolutely no results of any kind. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- great nomination argument from Melanie. I feel for the guy because he's gone through the trouble of finding lots of cites that make it look like a significant wikipedia article, but none of them point to evidence of significance among the scholarly community. Even if his thesis were published, that still wouldn't be enough for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no knowledge of how valid his theories are, but the story of the rejected theses gives this the strong smell of WP:FRINGE, in which case the article is inappropriately unbalanced (only detailing positive opinions on the work and not providing content-based reasons for it to have been rejected, only giving instead vague speculation about religious discrimination). With only marginal sources available (especially as the sources we are using appear to have been cherry-picked by the subject and collected on his web site) this lack of balance is going to be very difficult to remedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We crank the machinery and find cites of 4 and 3 for his books on Google Scholar. Seems far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per nom. →TSU ^tp* 15:08, 29 June 2012 (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.