Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickaël Vendetta (2nd nomination)

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 keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mickaël Vendetta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete (2nd nomination) : Not relevant in terms of encyclopedic coverage, no impact on society, no achievement to claim, lack of real notability... (#genium ✉) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... notability is determined by available coverage in reliable sources. The relevance or impact and achevments of a someone determinable as notable to and in France, does not have to have relevance or impact worldwide. We curb our unfortunate systemic bias by recognizing that notability elsewhere is perfectly fine for us here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Michael ! Sorry but your last point is not relevant to me because there is an implicit rule on the French WP that is saying the same thing: "Hey, there is an article on the English WP, so this is good enought for the French one". Please don't be fooled, there is nothing notorious about him, no reliable secondary source, IMHO, we are talking about self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity here! The funniest thing is that French use some comments on its blog as a reliable source on the French article:) (#genium ✉) 11:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As nominator you are not expected to agree with those who disagree with you, and your response here about the "Hey, there is an article on the English WP, so this is good enough for the French one", and userpage claim of usually contributing to the French Wikipedia, might even indicate a wish to first get rid of the English article in order to then support your getting the French article deleted. I do not see the article nor the available even if unused sources [1] supporting your assertion of no relevance, no impact, and no acheivement. I do see it through sources in its French counterpart (fr:Mickaël Vendetta#Notes et références) and online as suporting meeting WP:BIO through media coverage. I also see that a 20-lifetime-edits-ever anon IP 69.250.235.28 added {{cite}} tags to the article last March which could be addressed through regular editing by use of French language sources,[2]... those which may be determined as suitable here. If we have significant coverage over a many years period, we have notability. We do not delete because we "feel" years-long-in-depth coverage is unmerited or unwarranted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see more references from mainstream media sources (either French or international) to demonstrate notability. WP:WEB requires evidence of coverage in independent sources, and most of the current references don't seem independent (i.e. they're trying to sell something using Vendetta). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check the ones listed at fr:Mickaël Vendetta#Notes et références? Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... again Notability requires sources be available, not that they be English nor that they be used. Kudos to User:Uncle G for his sharing. Notability, even if only to France or in French,[3] is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. And in a sidenote, I was actually pleasently surprised to see how well the fr.Wikipedia] article on him is put together and sourced, as other Wikipedias are not bound by our particular set of guidelines, nor we by there's. Sad that its original author appears to have been chased away over 2 years ago,[4], and sad too that the article had not received the attention it needed. But something needing work does not mean we delete in its lack... and the French article is offering some fine sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional sources added by Schmidt during the course of this AFD firmly establish notability.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:55, 24 May 2012 (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.