Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Darré


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

André Darré

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France,  and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a 10-page scholarly biography here. Also mentioned here and here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Beyond the coverage already in the article (including the Gow biographical article) there's nontrivial coverage of him in Revue de Gascogne 1910. I think there's plenty here for GNG. WP:PROF is not so relevant for academics from so long ago. And the nominator's claim that the article was (at time of nomination) a stub is both irrelevant for notability and false: it was at least start-class. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons given by David Eppstein and also concerned by the suggestion that this was a stub.--Jahaza (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur that Notability (academics) is not really the applicable standard for historical figures, and I think there's enough documentation to write an article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets WP:GNG. Doesn't matter if the article is currently a stub or not. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources WP:NEXIST, even if the article is underdeveloped, deletion is not the solution to poorly written articles about obviously notable subjects, it needs to be developed using the sources above. This and this [Revue de Gascogne 1910] (already discussed above), along with a couple of others are certainly sufficient to establish GNG. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the same considerations apply as to the other three professors, who were instrumental in founding St Patrick's College, Maynooth. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article supports WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As per David Eppstein's source analysis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:50, 10 August 2022 (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.