Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Barba


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerard Barba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's totally an autobiography. It contains unreliable sources and doesn't have significant coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Masum Reza 📞 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza 📞  11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza 📞  11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello, we strongly disagree. There are reliable sources in the press (in French) that are cited. In addition, Gerard Barba's partner, Bruce Craig, has a page in Wikipedia, so it should be a reliable source. Together they sold their company to Apax Partners. It was the first major private equity transaction since the fall of Lehman Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardBarba (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , who is "we"? Shared accounts aren't permitted. creffett (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, apparently not notable. He gets about a dozen verifiable hits on Gnews, almost all relating to the possibility that he might have bought a rugby club; he didn't. One verifiable hit on Gbooks relates to the same (non-)event. Blatant COI/autobiography problems, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete given it's unambiguous advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to be policy compliant. There's a reason that we have rules around COI and it's because the ability of such an editor to write neutrally is going to be compromised even with the best of intentions. Note that this is a delete purely on these grounds, which if it weren't at AfD would have lead me to nominate for speedy deletion, and I have made no assessment of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the supposedly significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't exist. There might be more coverage out there, but it is unlikely. Rockphed (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete creating articles on oneself is a total violation of Wikipedia rules which we must act to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 15 September 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.