Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Foulquié


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul Foulquié

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are many thinkers and philosophers who have written books. Using the books he has written as references proves that the gentleman exists, but that does not prove that he is notable. There is no notability asserted or verified. Fiddle  Faddle  10:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - If he has been translated into different languages, then I would say that supports the conclusion that he is sufficiently notable. Greg Bard (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually being translated is not inherently notable, nothing in the rules anyway. It's a good sign that he probably is, to look for other rules-based evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say being translated means he's notable. All I said was that it supports the conclusion that he is notable.Greg Bard (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF. Works are quoted relentlessly on Google Books. 3,109 library holdings. Here are the citation numbers though due to age and humanities aspect these are probably incomplete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the refutation of the nominator's argument and the policy-based consensus above. Relisting is a waste of time when there are no valid arguments for deletion outstanding and such strong arguments for keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2013 (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.