User:LegesFundamentales/Draft: Deletion nomination for Cyril Benoit

Dear AfD discussion participants!

I am a fairly new editor with a specific topic of interest, and trying to get an article deleted is not a process I'm too familiar with, nor is it what I came to Wikipedia to do. But this case seriously irks me, and I feel I must do something about it. For context: I happened on the article I have nominated for deletion, Cyril Benoit, when trying to wikilink the editor of a book I was referencing -- Cyril Benoît (note the circumflex), a French political scientist and CNRS researcher at Sciences Po (and someone who might deserve an article himself, incidentally). The article's deletion was not controversial at all, to my mind, so I proposed it for deletion (7 July 2023). (It had previously been proposed for deletion under the BLP policy, meaning that I was not barred from proposing it under the normal PRODcedure.) Apparently, a PROD patroller thought differently, so here I am.

I have considered the article closely under English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Policies should normally be followed by all editors; editors should attempt to follow guidelines -- within the bounds of common sense and bearing in mind that exceptions may occasionally be made. English Wikipedia's policy for deletion is posited in WP:DEL, which features a non-exhaustive list of reasons for deletion in WP:DEL-REASON. I think deletion may be indicated for Cyril Benoit under WP:DEL-REASON Nos. 4 (PR pieces), 7 (lack of reliable sources and verifiability) in conjunction with no. 9 (BLP), 8 (Notability), and 14 (miscellaneous lack of encyclopedic value). I will detail them in an efficient order.

1. Under No. 7. The article may qualify for deletion for lack of verifiability: No. 7 states that a failure of thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify the article is a reason for deletion. Verifiability is a core content policy, requiring assertions to be excluded from the Wikipedia mainspace unless readers of the encyclopedia can ascertain that the assertion originates from a reliable source.
   1. Generally speaking, . Seven sources are cited, each as an inline citation. I have been able to check three of them. Two are hard-to-track-down books; it would be possible for me to take a day to visit a specialist library whose catalogue says they have them, but that would be more work than it's worth. The remaining two are pay-to-read online articles (maybe Wikipedia provides access to the Le Monde archives and Les Echos?). I cannot affirmatively prove that those aren't reliable sources that can be used to verify all the claims in the article, even if the inline citations appear to be supporting only one contention each. The ones I could access, though, are not very good ones.
   2. The burden may shifted onto those who asserted the facts in the article to provide more concrete verifiability, under No. 9.
   3. I want to
   4. It is not
2. Under No. 4. Cyril Benoit may violate the prohibition of advertisements. Content guideline WP:BROCHURE states that "Articles considered advertisements include those that [...] are public relations pieces designed to promote a[n] [...] individual."
3. Under No. 14.
4. Under No. 8. The subject of the article may not meet the standard for notability. WP:N creates a presumption of notability for an article if it meets either WP:GNG or WP:SNG (in this case: WP:NBIO, and if it does not violate WP:NOT.

Further, WP:DEL-REASONS weighs against deletion if it is practical to improve the page or delete an offending section.