- 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. And salt Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Marcel_Saucet
- Marcel_Saucet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was already nominated for deletion once, and the decision to delete it was unanimous [1]. Despite that, it has since been recreated by single-purpose account whose only activity has been to recreate this purely promotional article.
The arguments for deletion are the same as in 2014. The subject is an academic. As academic goes, he is well below even the average academic in notability. He does not have a tenured position at any university. His academic publication are few, and they are all in obscure journals (not even one article in a journal with an impact factor, let alone in a leading journal).
If we have an article on an academic without tenure and without any significant publication, then we should have an article on every single academic there is. Furthermore, as the article was already deleted, after a unanimous decision, yet recreated by a single-purpose account, I would recommend we delete and salt. As David Eppstein pointed out when the article was last deleted, already that article was created by a sock-puppet on a banned user, and I think it's a WP:DUCK that the spa who recreated the article was another sock. That's why salting after deletion is recommendable. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I guess WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply because this has survived for a year (how, I wonder?) but nothing has changed since the last AfD. Subject isn't even close to meeting the WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC (if you can even call "street marketing" an academic field). – Joe ( talk) 10:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. Has made almost no impact on the world of scholarship. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
- Delete. My rationale from last time around looks as valid now. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:34, 13 July 2017 (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. And salt Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Marcel_Saucet
- Marcel_Saucet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was already nominated for deletion once, and the decision to delete it was unanimous [1]. Despite that, it has since been recreated by single-purpose account whose only activity has been to recreate this purely promotional article.
The arguments for deletion are the same as in 2014. The subject is an academic. As academic goes, he is well below even the average academic in notability. He does not have a tenured position at any university. His academic publication are few, and they are all in obscure journals (not even one article in a journal with an impact factor, let alone in a leading journal).
If we have an article on an academic without tenure and without any significant publication, then we should have an article on every single academic there is. Furthermore, as the article was already deleted, after a unanimous decision, yet recreated by a single-purpose account, I would recommend we delete and salt. As David Eppstein pointed out when the article was last deleted, already that article was created by a sock-puppet on a banned user, and I think it's a WP:DUCK that the spa who recreated the article was another sock. That's why salting after deletion is recommendable. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I guess WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply because this has survived for a year (how, I wonder?) but nothing has changed since the last AfD. Subject isn't even close to meeting the WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC (if you can even call "street marketing" an academic field). – Joe ( talk) 10:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. Has made almost no impact on the world of scholarship. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
- Delete. My rationale from last time around looks as valid now. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:34, 13 July 2017 (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.