Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Lefebure


 * 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. Tawker (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Francis Lefebure

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person lacks of any notability beyond trying to market a pseudoscientific product and using wikipedia to promote it. None of the problems detected since 2009 have been solved and it doesn't look like they are going to be solved ever. Fjsalguero (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as unnotable practicioner of fringe science. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. I found some fringe books discussing him:   . However the coverage is brief and I could not find any mainstream sources to balance these and provide a neutral point of view on the subject. I don't think that's good enough. On the other hand, the nominator's statement is problematic and fails to assume good faith: how could someone dead since 1988 be trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete And I have the same question as David... --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * David and Randy, you are right. My statement may have been a bit too harsh. Anyway, as it usually happens with pseudoscience, the death of the first promoter doesn't mean the end of the bussiness.--Fjsalguero (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2014 (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.