Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Didier Guillon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. Chenzw Talk 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Guillon[change source]

Didier Guillon (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

MrMeAndMrMe has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Another article that does not claim notability throughout the article. This one might be a little more dubious, since there are more sources, but there is no explanation as to why this individual is notable. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 19:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change source]

Delete - that is what i am leaning toward. I was not able to spot any wiki-notability in the article.--There might be arguments to be found in discussions at En-wiki:
12:24, 24 August 2023 Deb talk contribs deleted page Didier Guillon (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
17:04, 1 February 2018 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page Didier Guillon (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). 2001:2020:353:998B:C58D:D7F8:18B5:97EB (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are literally two different articles, with different text and used sources. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. 37.252.90.203 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains 30 reliable sources that are sufficient to confirm the notability of the topic. Some points from the rules that the article follows:

1. WP:GNG (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.).

2. WP:PEOPLE (A person can be notable if they have been written about in many published secondary sources. These must be reliable, independent of each other, and independent of the subject.).

3. WP:CREATIVE (The person's work.. (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

4. WP:CREATIVE (The person has a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.)

5. WP:CREATIVE (A person who fails to meet these additional standards may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.). 37.252.90.203 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - French-wiki deleted to articles with that name.--Can cross-wiki spam be ruled out? See "9 juin 2015 à 16:20 O Kolymbitès ... a supprimé la page Didier Guillon (Ne répond pas aux critères d'admissibilité)". 2001:2020:327:B0B6:B1A0:D3A1:C2C4:50BB (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:353:998B:C58D:D7F8:18B5:97EB[reply]
Further comment - i have googled the person: the hits do not indicate wiki-notability.--Perfume seller that claims to be an art expert? 2001:2020:327:B0B6:B1A0:D3A1:C2C4:50BB (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, upon further consideration, but some work should be done to fix some of the heavy promotion MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 14:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it needs some work, but it is an okay article. --CactusMunch ^Yum ^o.o 10:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)2001:2020:303:BEB3:1CB1:A7A0:97EE:8CAD (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cactus0rme, who 'voted' Keep: that person started editing yesterday on June 11, it seems. 2001:2020:303:BEB3:1CB1:A7A0:97EE:8CAD (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is a minimum requirement to participate in the discussion, unless I am mistaken. CactusMunch ^Yum ^o.o 10:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactus0rme: Above, under "Discussions", it says, "New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance." -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and why did you remove my sign? CactusMunch ^Yum ^o.o 00:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "17:04, 1 February 2018 Jimfbleak ... deleted page Didier Guillon (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)".--Those words fit the article on Simple-wiki, too, i sense.<br
Article about the person, has been kicked out of English-wiki and kicked out from French-wiki ("9 juin 2015 à 16:20 O Kolymbitès").--Yeah, there might be cases where an article should be granted asylum at Simple-wiki. Unfortunately, I just do not think that this is it.--Note: I have not given much thought to the following idea: "12:24, 24 August 2023 Deb talk contribs deleted page Didier Guillon (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)" - an idea from English-wiki (from one of the two times the article was deleted at English-wiki). 2001:2020:339:B38E:A1E5:4891:457F:C77F (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:339:B38E:A1E5:4891:457F:C77F (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - Do i have a problem with the article being kept here, and then at En-wiki a newer version getting deleted (again, in the future)? No. 2001:2020:339:B38E:A1E5:4891:457F:C77F (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:353:998B:C58D:D7F8:18B5:97EB /2001:2020:339:B38E:A1E5:4891:457F:C77F (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the article was deleted cross-wiki does not mean that we have to delete it here. While the article does advertise in its current state, I see no reason as to why to delete the article when it can be easily changed to remove all instances of advertising while keeping the article notable. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 04:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the author, the article meets the requirements of both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, and its content can be revised if necessary. Best. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 19:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.