Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Bargès
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Secret account 07:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anne Bargès (edit | 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 academic is not even close to satisfying any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), let alone more general notability criteria. A search on Web of Science turned up just 3 publications with a total of 2 citations! RockMagnetist (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete agreed as above. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. CV stub having no claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete academic positions seem non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. On the off chance that the problem is merely that our article is badly written, and that she has some notability not evident in what is written here, I went looking on Google scholar for citations to her work. The numbers are higher than the WoS numbers reported above (as is typical for GS) but they're still in the single digits, well below WP:PROF#C1. And there's no evidence of any other kind of notability, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.