Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges Cadiou


 * 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 for lack of sources supporting encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Georges Cadiou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article about the living person is lacking adequate reliable sources to prove the accuracy of the content provided by the page creator. Abishe (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  14:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As written, this literally just states that he exists as a journalist and deputy mayor, sourcing the fact only to a single newspaper blurb about his initial candidacy in the municipal election which strictly speaking doesn't even verify that he actually won the election in the first place. But being a deputy mayor is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass (at this size of place even the mayor mayor wouldn't be presumed notable on this little sourcing or substance, let alone the deputy mayor!), and being a journalist is not an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him doing those things to get him over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a hell of a lot better than this, but nothing here guarantees him a Wikipedia article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep:  it can be fixed, please take good  look to his Wikipedia french page , this just Another case of confusing article qualiity with Notability , the article meet WP:GNG   Samat lib (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The French article certainly has a lot more content than this, but what it doesn't have is a GNG-satisfying volume of reliable sources: it has six footnotes total, of which one is the same source that's inadequate here, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in the acknowledgements page of an author's book rather than content that's substantively about him, and one is his primary source profile on the website of the city. And the number of reliable sources left is not enough to get the deputy mayor of a small city over WP:NPOL #2 — every municipal councillor in every town could always show three pieces of purely local coverage, whereas our notability standards for local politicians require substantial evidence that he's significantly more notable than the norm for that level of office by virtue of having garnered a lot more coverage than most others could show. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * comment i told you this article can be fixed, it need more work, Samat lib (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC) but i have added more sources to the article .Samat lib (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference-bombing one statement with a string of 11 sources, while adding no actual substance to expand the article to say any more than it already said, is not "fixing" anything. As I said, what we require is evidence that he's substantially more notable than most other deputy mayors of most other places, by virtue of having garnered substantially more coverage than most other deputy mayors of most other places could show, and what you've added to the article is not demonstrating that at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment   notable French journalist  sports commentary, multiple independent sources added - his WELL known as French journalist  sports commentary,  the article meet WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to admin has been blocked for sockpuppetry per this block log

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST i.e all the professions claimed. And attempt to ref-bomb 1 claim while substantial text is unreferenced shows clear attempt to game Wikipedia policies and guidelines. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2017 (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.