- 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. The consensus is to Delete this article. To the editors working on this article, being a Microsoft employee, even a senior employee, doesn't in itself establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacques Bonjawo[edit]
- Jacques Bonjawo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sources here are primary and there is only sources about quotes online. I think this is not enough to scratch notability yet. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11. Pure puffery, no evidence of notability. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- hello. I understand your point but if you check the link to the Microsoft Alumni website, you will see that all information's in my page are mentioned. I hope you known Microsoft Alumni is an association for Previous Microsoft Members. Emmanuel T. (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — Moffo Cartele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- i've just Updated the sources by adding a direct link for the Microsoft Alumni website. the link shows 80% of the information's on my page are verified. Emmanuel T. (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: PROMO. Independent sources don't count towards notability and the association with Microsoft is a name drop. I don't find sourcing for this person otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All the link's in the article show that he did not just collaborate with Microsoft but he worked there for almost ten years. I don't really understand your point and i don't think saying the truth can be considered as a kind of PROMO. check the link below
- [1]https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx?sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=3131 Emmanuel T. (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- i don't really understand what is wrong about this article sources. as for me, all the sources shows notability of the article. Mercury Dev'sCartele dev's (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) — Cartele dev's (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: A book review (?) here: [2], but still not enough for author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- your link show's his old books while the article is talking about his recent books. I think the link's of his recent books available contains all the necessary information's for author notability. Mercury Dev'sCartele dev's (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- delete complete and utter vanity spam dumpster filled to the brim with garbage (fake, black hat seo) which is a surprise to exactly no one. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While cursory searches have shown some newspaper coverage, I've been unable to verify the reliability of any of them. At the time I stumbled across this article and its AfD, most sources were user-generated (Microsoft wiki..?) and therefore unreliable. I still stand by my earlier speedy delete vote as G11. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (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.