Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre-Louis Parant


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pierre-Louis Parant

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I originally PRODded this for other issues, but deprodded it after the original issues seemed to be fixed. After further consideration, I think the notability is questionable enough to warrant AfD discussion. There is a possible conflict of interest here on the part of the original author, based on hit #9 in this Google search, where, although the link no longer works, the page title matches the article name and the username in the URL matches the author of the article. Several claims in the article are uncited and questionable at best, and I think that overall, he's just not notable enough. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The two inventions seem to be his and genuine - and I have heard of the Surfbike (which as I live on a wide flat sand beached coast and have never even in wild moments wanted to surf may mean something...). As to his sporting achievements, I pass the buck to those interested in sport. Peridon (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Not much coverage about him that I could find. There is this article.  His kayak variant was pitched on the Canadian Dragon's Den, and he was a semi-finalist in the 2007 IDM DEsign Awards.  If there were some more coverage, this would be enough to push it to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Google has now removed the link that I referenced in my deletion rationale above, probably due to it being a dead link. For future reference, it consisted of a link to a Twitter account under the same username as the author of this article (as evidenced by the URL), and the title of the page, which on Twitter is the user's name that they have entered into their profile, matched the title of this article. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Indeed seems to be self-promotion. The inventions as such are not especially notable, and much less so is the inventor of them. Travelbird (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2011 (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.