Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre-Emmanuel Debergh


 * 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. RN 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pierre-Emmanuel Debergh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:N. No secondary, independent sources about the sportsman and organizational head. There is an article on fr.wikipedia but it is also unsourced. There are a few references to the sport itself that get news, all that I've found so far in French. . Barring sources, I rec deletion. j &#9883; e decker talk  03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Delete, I can't find anything worthwhile. Note that Articles for deletion/France Sport Blowgun Association was also deleted last year. --Milowent (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 'Delete - there is no coverage about this individual. He is credited with writing some material here, but I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE Darn, this really shouldn't have needed to be relisted (it delays the total success of Unreferenced BLP Rescue/April 2008), even an ardent inclusionist like me is in favor of deletion. Hopefully a few editors will review and add their views so the consensus becomes clear.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Arguably, this didn't even need to be put through an AFD, and PROD would have been sufficient. His only claim to notability int he article is related to the France Sport Blowgun Association which has been found to lack notability for inclusion, so there really is no strong assertion of notability, nor the likelihood of controversy over the deletion that would necessitate an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect to PROD: I considered it, but I tend to exercise a little extra care where the potential sources aren't in a lanugage I'm fluent in. Perhaps I was overcautious, however. -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When an article has been around a few years and never been prodded, I think being cautious can't hurt. Perhaps its never prodded because no one knows its there; alternatively, its because people know its there and think it should remain.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in general. This particlular article is a special case as the organisation was already processed through an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (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.