Deletion of Jean-Pierre Barou

Comment: u|Brxdxe}}, I still have to disagree: the subject is not, as you say, "definitely notable". For that, he would have to pass  with flying colours. We would need several reliable and independent sources that cover him in depth. I would agree with Govvy that the subject is closer to meeting . {{u|Govvy}}, could you weigh in again and help identify which section of  he meets? In my view, he might meet 3. for having played a part in founding the magazine Libération. The requirement is that he played a "major role" in its creation. The Wikipedia article of this journal does not mention him, so I think it's fair to at least question how important he was in the foundation. The supposed https://www.liberation.fr/tribune/2008/05/12/requiem-pour-sartre_71467 source for this information defends Sartre for his late political activism and involvement with Maoism and traces his intellectual milieu in the final decade of his life. I cannot find in this source anything that tells me Barou played a part in founding ''Libération''. The article mentions a journal called ''Cause du people'', but it doesn't say whether the subject founded it. There is this https://digiday.com/media/after-22-years-of-losses-french-left-wing-daily-liberations-pivots-officially-to-non-profit-status/ article which talks about the journal's switch to non-profit. But it does not contain anything on Barou. If any of you could provide a quotation from a third-party source that tells me beyond doubt that he had a major role in co-founding Sartre's journal I am willing to change my mind. I'm not trying to be pedantic — if he is notable for co-founding the journal, there will be detailed third-party sources about this. As it is, criterion 3 is failed in my view. Now, criterion 4 which states that the subject must have received "significant critical attention". This could be satisfied by a review of his life's work from a reputable newspaper such as the Guardian etc. Again, if something is found, do post it here. I know there are lots of interviews and similar content available online and I'm not saying they can't be used. But they don't constitute the independent coverage needed to firmly establish notability. I also know the bar is lower of  but the fact that lots of sources exist does not automatically fulfil any of Thea criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: easily meets . There are plenty of sources available on Google News which can be added to the article to improve it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)