Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delphine Lannuzel


 * 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. czar 08:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Delphine Lannuzel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough WP:RS. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC) — Baum des Lichtes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, plenty of reliable sources.--Grahame (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:LOTSOFSOURCES duffbeerforme (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, enough reliable resources 149.144.218.48 (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:LOTSOFSOURCES duffbeerforme (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete . Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck due to cites. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Because the article has many independent reliable sources to make the article pass WP:GNG and cross the threshold of Notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sockpuppet. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Such as? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * duffbeerforme I think you might have to wait a while for an answer.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. I'm not convinced that the awards listed are anything special but a Google scholar h-index of 23 should be enough for WP:PROF. As for LOTSOFSOURCES: Google scholar claims that over 1400 academic works cite hers. The factual claims in the article are adequately sourced even though only the scar one is truly independent of the subject, and that one has little depth.  —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein: 1476 citations on Google Scholar, to be exact. I feel satisfied that's "highly cited" per WP:PROF. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG. And to answer, you are citing an essay. The policy of GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Therefore if there are enough sources, the subject passes GNG. Saying there are plenty of sources is certainly a valid argument, though it is more effective if the !voters would expand on their arguments. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a vague wave at the claimed existence of sources is extremely weak. What are the sources that are good enough? Sure there might be reliable sources but do any talk about her? A weak "plenty of sources" tells us nothing. Enough sources, the subject passes GNG? Only if there is coverage about her. It is an extremely weak argument. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per this Google Scholar search. There are easily enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:PROF as well.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 23:32, 15 July 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.