Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Boulanger


 * 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 The additions made by User:Phil Bridger address the initial concerns of sourcing and of whether the subject was notable. Mandsford 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Gérard Boulanger

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails GNG. For example, a search in Le Monde + "Gérard Boulanger" - results in no hits at all. In the alternative, the article fails WP:POLITICIAN - "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" Shirt58 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Simply not notable. --Stormbay (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stormbay, "Simply not notable" is not a good argument for deletion --Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not an argument; it is an opinion. I based the opinion on a search that I did and found nothing notable. However, as you see below, someone has come to the rescue. Now, its not only not a good opinion, its in error. Perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn. --Stormbay (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable more as a lawyer and author than as a politician. The Google News and Books searches linked above find hundreds of reliable sources, starting with this and this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I originally closed this debate as Keep, but I then realized that it was created before the BLP PROD guideline was in place.  Thus, I am voting for deletion until/unless reliable sources are added to the article. Logan Talk Contributions 06:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely in the time that it took you to close, reopen and comment on this you could have simply added one of the sources yourself? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 06:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.