Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Rougeau


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Vincent Rougeau

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources appear only primary  Jen yir e2  20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jen yir e2  20:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Question. has the nominator carried out WP:Before and looked for sources that are not primary? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep both per blatant failure of nominator to perform WP:BEFORE and for a nomination statement that does not even address the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF. This is a brand-new article, not in great shape as nominated, but WP:DINC. Subject appears to pass WP:PROF both as head of a major scholarly association and as head of a notable institution of higher learning. Notability in general does not require sources to be non-primary (although for WP:GNG they should be independent, reliable, and in-depth) and WP:PROF does not even require them to be independent. And in this case, independent reliable secondary sources appear plentiful in Google News searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep — Per rationale by . I honestly do not believe also that a thorough before search was conducted. Celestina007 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per the above comments. It is pretty clear from what's in the article already that WP:PROF is satisfied on several counts. Moreover, a GNews search shows plenty of newscoverage as well, so likely passes WP:BIO too. It also seems clear that the nominator is not well familiar with the deletion process and they would be well advised to ease off with Special:NewPagesFeed for a while. Nsk92 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * speedy keep for the obvious reasons. I'd also advise Jenyire2 to stop afding stuff until they're better able to understand our criteria. CUPIDICAE💕  11:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - obviously meets WP:NACADEMIC.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep now that notability is clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF. Dean of a leading law school and a major independent college. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2021 (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.