Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éric Mickeler


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Éric Mickeler

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As per my PROD nomination: Fails WP:GNG. There is only one significant source (The 2009 Le Journal des Arts article), which is an interview, which are generally regarded as weak sources with regard to notabiliy. The rest of the references are not significant (like auction listings, or announcements by companies he owns), or are newspaper articles which only quote Mickeler in passing regarding auctions he had consulted on, which is not significant coverage (I have checked every reference, including french language ones). Many of the references do not support factual assertions made in the article (like his role as an Orchid technician), and the article uses overtly promotional language which suggests that this may be a COI/UPE article. As I understand, the "Museum of Dinosaurs" in Prague is a commerical and not academic museum, and the IP's objection the prod, that he supposedly passes WP:PROF, are nonsensical, as Mickeler has never published a scientific paper, and is only mentioned in passing in one. I don't think Mickeler's books are notable enough to pass NAUTHOR either, I can't find any reviews of them. The Paris Art source appears to contain part of the preface for the book, rather than a review. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, France, Businesspeople and Authors Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Promo on a man doing his job. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO.   scope_creep Talk  10:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I endorsed the PROD, and will repeat exact the same reasons here. Spot checking sources (BBC, The Guardian, ABC) shows that the subj. is mentioned only in passing; the nominator's "significant source" is ineligible for demonstrating notability because it is a non-independent interview. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2023 (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.