Deletion of Laurent Schwartz (oncologist)

Comment: Despite the citation data, there is  a lack of independent, reliable secondary sources that I think we need, and are encouraged by , to determine if this person warrants an article. Two secondary sources are listed, but they fail provide sufficient depth of detail to support the notability of this person, or indicate that his research stands out from the pack. They are utiized to support the Biorebus section, but do not mention the company. I agree that the article is promotional in tone, that it stretches the facts to the breaking point ("Major achievements" should be "Areas of research") and that yes, the COI doesn't help one bit. Alleged and unsourced relationship to famous mathematician of the same name is inconsequential
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per WP:PROF, which he appears to meet.  While a |COI makes me look Skepticism|more closely and skeptically at |a new BLP, ''it does not require'' deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:BLP)

Comment: You did not look hard enough then. I found on GS cites of 668, 145, 139, 137, 105..... to give an h-index of around 20 (being careful not to count those of the algebraist). This should just give a pass of rof#C1 in a highly cited field. Connection with Biorébus may add to notability under rof#C7
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P)

Comment: I came here from a COI report.  I'm not reading the rest of this AfD until after !voting to try and remain neutral.  I'm sure the AfD has also mentioned the COI and POV content but I'm going to ignore those issues for the time being and focus on notability.  , , , and  look to be the only portions of  that the subject may satisfy, unless a significant portion of his life has been omitted from the WP article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROF||WP:N)