Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal Kleiman

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. After improvements by Michig and Fayenatic London, now does not qualify for BLP Prod, and passes notability requirements, consensus is keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Kleiman (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)

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this but I'm still not sure if that would be enough improvement especially considering I'm not seeing much else (this also hasn't changed much since starting in February 2008). Pinging B, Klemen Kocjancic, Fayenatic london, Portnadler, Werldwayd, Geniac and DJ Clayworth. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of coverage around with which the article can be improved, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a completely unsourced BLP. While some of the references Michig gave do appear to demonstrate notability, in order for this article to be retained, the references need to be incorporated into the article. Unsourced BLPs are obviously unacceptable and if this article had been created two years later, it would be subject to summary deletion. --B (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it had been created two years later it would have been subject to BLP Prod, not summary deletion. --Michig (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rescue. Years ago I proposed deletion; it was de-prodded with neither explanation nor action to improve it. However, I came to the view that the subject probably is notable, so the page needs WP:RESCUE rather than deletion. – Fayenatic London 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • now, Keep. Thank you, Michig. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 16 October 2015 (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.