An engineer and co-founder of the the internet advocate group La Quadrature du Net. There are no independent, reliable references about him in the article or to be found. Only able to find articles that contain a quote by him, of which three of them are used as references in the article. There are plenty of videos. As there are no refs that go into any detail beyond a quote, he fails GNG. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Redirect was refused. Bgwhite (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Perhaps I don't know the GNG well enough, but there are three reliable references, including one from the New York Times, which include not only a quote but detail on who is and where he works. There also appear to be many French sources, though I don't understand them. Unless someone can show me a specific passage of GNG that can explain to me why this does not meet the criteria, my vote is Keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs) 14:07 June 13, 2012 (UTC-6)
Per WP:GNG. There needs to be "significant coverage" in the references that are about Zimmermann. Where, " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Your reference are about subjects other than Zimmermann. The references are only using quotes by Zimmerman. In no way is there "significant coverage" or "address Zimmermann directly in detail". Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll quote the passage directly "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source. I have placed those parts in bold because Zimmerman meets all three of those criteria. The last ten words I believe negate your main argument. The other point you are arguing on is "in detail" and "trivial mention", which I think is rather vague policy and could be argued either way for Zimmerman, but it is at least clear to me that all of the specific (and therefore useful) criteria (those in bold) have been met, which is enough for me. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
delete. "appear to be many French sources" is not. Not enough evevn for French wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to La Quadrature du Net. Might as well keep it that way until he's known for something other than that and a random guest-spot. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)