Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lazard

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lazard

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Hello, I just came across Daniel Lazard page and I think it doesn't respect the rules. I was told that i couldn't have nor create a wikipedia page for myself because my name wasn't in any journalistic source, that I didn't have enough notoriety. This page doesn't have journalistic sources either but still makes the promotion of his work and articles, and his biography is dense about where he grew up etc. even with unsourced material. Can I also create my own page and publish my own work on it ? Else I have to ask for deletion. Thanks in advance— Preceding unsigned comment added by Username1789 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Speedy Keep. Stunning citations for pure mathematics. Bad faith nomination: a trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. Article could be improved a bit but as it stands, it shouldn't be deleted. MaterialWorks _(talk) 11:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of citations (in a lower-to-low citation field) for WP:NPROF C1, and the retirement conference helps further support this criterion. Note that authors are usually ordered alphabetically in mathematics. References are needed for some personal facts, and the list of selected publications is a bit overlong, but WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep seeming bad-faith nomination aimed at retaliating against another editor rather than improving the encyclopedia; article passes WP:PROF#C1. See also Tkuvho's removal of notability banners in 2011 and my unprod in 2018. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep, a large number of highly cited publications. Jeppiz (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Bad-faith nomination stemming from an off-wiki dispute. Neither WP:BEFORE nor a reading of the relevant notability guideline were conducted. Curbon7 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2023 (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.