Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Onfray


 * 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. Tone 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Michel Onfray

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

BLP tagged with needed sources since May and lacking in any that would demonstrate notability. COI, as the person was added as a source to a ton of articles in the past by accounts linked to this one, and major sockpuppeting was found. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While I cannot digest a single page of philosophic writing (and thus is quite useless in actually improving the article), may I remind you of substantial third-party coverage, both in scholarly papers and in the news. Widely cited, more widely criticized (reading the critics' exercise in sarcasm was actually funny). Sorry, no MTV awards. NVO (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a widely cited scholar, see . Bearian (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Merely pointing to Google Scholar does not prove anything one way or another; for all we know all the listings are merely trivia mentions, which do not mean he meets the General notability criteria or WP:ACADEMIC as I read them. The bottom references might be enough to establish notability, but I'm having a hard time proving that they meet our sourcing criteria. I'm willing to go with keep simply because he's French, and thus English source checking will not prove notability necessarily. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  Extensive list of publications, some good references given for sources already, and a considerable list of additional good sources in the frWP. Coverage  in the relevant   language WP is not proof of notability, as all of them have different standards, but at the least its always worth checking for possible references--if the article here was based on a translation of, many such translations as entered here tend to be incomplete & don't represent the whole article, especially difficult parts like references. That it's also in such   Wikipedias as deWP with   high standards certainly helps.     DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 22 September 2009 (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.