Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sébastien Fournier (chemist)

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Fournier (chemist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. This page seems like a vanity page for a run of the mill pharma chemist. He has a few papers in the literature, but nothing earth-shattering - there are no secondary references, for example. Chris (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject's name actually seems to be Sébastien Fournier-Bidoz ( (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) ), and his citation record on GScholar seems reasonable (even good) for someone who has never had a permanent academic post - but may fall a bit short of
WP:PROF#1. However, there are immediate problems with general searches on the name, as it seems to be precisely the same as that of a French Olympic skier of about ten years ago - who, however, seems to be a different person. PWilkinson (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,

Huntley 01:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. He has enough citations in Google scholar to be respectable, but not really enough to convince me of a pass of
WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2012 (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.