Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Bach


 * 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. Tone 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

François Bach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP (created by an WP:SPA with no non-Bach-related edit history and thus possibly a conflict of interest AUTOBIO) about a designer whose notability claims are not referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage. The vast majority of the sources being cited here are not valid support for notability at all -- there are primary sources like his own LinkedIn and his own design firm's self-published website about itself and speaker profiles on the self-published websites of conferences he attended; there are corporate and organizational blogs which are not reliable sources at all; there are Q&A interviews and pieces of his own bylined writing, in which he's the speaker and not the subject; there are sources which glancingly namecheck his existence without being about him to any non-trivial degree; and there are sources which tangentially verify stray facts without even mentioning his name at all -- none of which count as notability-supporting sources. And of the very few sources here that actually represent reliable source media coverage about him as a subject, every last one of them is local coverage in his hometown media market, in not inherently notable contexts like doing design work for local bands and local organizations -- which means that it fails to represent a broad enough geographic range of coverage to overcome how bad the rest of the sources are. As always, notability for Wikipedia purposes is not a measure of what the article says, it's a measure of how well the things it says are referenced to reliable sources -- and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment the lead says he's a professor, but the body doesn't mention it and I can't find any sources that corroborate that claim. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I trimmed a lot of the article, as well as the unsourced professor claim. He does seem to get a lot of coverage but I cannot unravel it all as the article is such an intentional puff job. If kept, TNT is perhaps required. My main reasomn for delte here is the level of intentional puffery and the likelihood that it will be very difficult to create a good encyclopedia article if that continues.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd think that if someone is a notable designer, then there's some (preferably significant) critical assessment of his work in reliable sources. In other words: I expect to see someone discuss his work. But I see nothing of the kind. We're told that he's a product designer, but not which products he designed, that he's a a speaker on topics like mindfulness, but not why he's an expert and that he operated a business and had clients, which is pretty unremarkable. The awards he has won are not notable. He apparently play the base, I guess in band, but we're not told which one. This subject lacks, well, substance. It's all routine stuff, there are thousands of designers, and this one has not made an impact. Vexations (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2019 (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.