- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Dominique Surel
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dominique Surel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:FRINGEBLP of a subject who fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:BASIC. Holds a position at what appears to be a for-profit distance learning institution. Co-author of one low-cited but legitimately published paper ( doi: 10.1097/00006216-200607000-00005), but I see no indication of passing any of the relevant SNGs. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. It is possible for fringe practitioners to be notable, but only through mainstream sources that provide a sufficiently neutral and in-depth description of who they are and what they do. We don't appear to have any of that in this case. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. For an out there WP:FRINGE topic like 'paranormal research' we would definitely need substantial coverage by mainstream scientific sources, not what is present here. The article is written as a promotional piece of WP:FRINGE work and looks unsalvageable. Nsk92 ( talk) 07:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I concur with the nomination and the !votes above (and the article being tagged for half a decade without improvement doesn't help either). XOR'easter ( talk) 14:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete we need substantial mainstream coverage for someone involved in such a fringe topic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:55, 2 October 2020 (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.
- 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Dominique Surel
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dominique Surel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:FRINGEBLP of a subject who fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:BASIC. Holds a position at what appears to be a for-profit distance learning institution. Co-author of one low-cited but legitimately published paper ( doi: 10.1097/00006216-200607000-00005), but I see no indication of passing any of the relevant SNGs. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. It is possible for fringe practitioners to be notable, but only through mainstream sources that provide a sufficiently neutral and in-depth description of who they are and what they do. We don't appear to have any of that in this case. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. For an out there WP:FRINGE topic like 'paranormal research' we would definitely need substantial coverage by mainstream scientific sources, not what is present here. The article is written as a promotional piece of WP:FRINGE work and looks unsalvageable. Nsk92 ( talk) 07:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I concur with the nomination and the !votes above (and the article being tagged for half a decade without improvement doesn't help either). XOR'easter ( talk) 14:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete we need substantial mainstream coverage for someone involved in such a fringe topic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:55, 2 October 2020 (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.