Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to France. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|France|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to France. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/France/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board

Scan for France related AfDs

Scan for France related Prods
Scan for France related TfDs

France

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Baumann

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

fails notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV, NBAD). zglph^•talk• 09:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and France. zglph^•talk• 09:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unequivocally fails WP:GNG, let alone sports criteria. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2025 (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.

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 delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yoann Chauvière

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and France. Joeykai (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Nothing further to establish notability. Morekar (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2025 (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.

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. Clear consensus among editors that the subject meets WP:NPROF #2. (non-admin closure) EmilyR34 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Zemiro

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

I couldn't find indepth coverage of this person. The limited coverage seems to discuss her in relation to her more famous daughter Julia Zemiro. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and notability is not inherited. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment/Question~~ Keep (see later in the thread) -- anyone know about numbers annually for foreign recipients of the "Ordre des Palmes Académiques"? For French nationals, the lowest order (4,000 annually) and probably middle level (1,500) are not sufficiently rare to confer notability (per WP:PROF -- the highest level at 280/year probably is enough). But when it comes to foreign recipients are they sufficiently rare as to make it like the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres which is enough to pass the bar? -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference (see Comment below) so subject may pass WP:NPROF #2. Nnev66 (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nnev66 -- so it looks like there were 3 her year and about 3 on average per year (about 150 in the list, about 50 years of coverage), with a conferral ceremony at the embassy, etc. that seems like enough for NPROF#2 voting Keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated bold vote. I did check the daughter and it doesn't appear that her career was sufficiently important by the time mom got the award to have been a likely influence on it. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. My quick BEFORE search didn't found references containing significant about her. Thus, fails to meet WP:GNG or to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. I have seen her name listed here but didn't found references to verify it. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NPROF#2. Fade258 (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She's listed as a recipient of "The Palmes Académiques in Australia" on the "Institute for the Study of French-Australian Relations" website: [1] It says "This list was compiled by William A. Land. An article by him on the subject was published in The French Australian Review Number 62 Australian Winter 2017." Seems OK to me. Waiting for Proquest access to hopefully come back as there may be more there. Nnev66 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC) cc:Fade258[reply]
Hi @Nnev66. Thanks for providing reference. It seems that she probably meets NPROF#2, before I consider to change my !vote. I want some clarification. I know that the award is highly significant and notable but she doesn't have significant coverage in references. Fade258 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also curious what folks think but am leaning toward weak keep. Again, if Proquest becomes available again I’m curious if there’s anything in there. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for it. Fade258 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Saskatchewan's government considers Canadian chevaliers of the Palmes academiques to be among their significant "National and International Honours" (see under International Honours -> France). This evidence moved me from a weakish to full keep above. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mscuthbert's rationale as subject meets NPROF#2. Nnev66 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of a notable award. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2025 (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.

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 redirect to Domaine Clarence Dillon. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe François Armand Marie de Noailles

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

The article lacks significance. It contains only genealogical information. It states that he holds a French title, even though titles in France were abolished in 1870. RobertVikman (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regardless of whether his titles are legal, I don't see a lot outside of trade publications. It asserts that he managed Domaine Clarence Dillon, a major wine company. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct you a bit. He was the company's CEO, but he didn't manage it. The Domaine Clarence Dillon article states that his wife was the company's president from 1975 to 2008. Therefore, he is not significant by any criteria in the English Wikipedia. RobertVikman (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Domaine Clarence Dillon. The sources mention him in a context of the wine company. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domaine Clarence Dillon. is a an ok ATD. Attempts to search additional sources does not return SIGCOV sources to suggest standalone notability for now.Lorraine Crane (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2025 (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.

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 redirect to List of Polish models. now that it exists (thank you). Arguments against retention do not make the case that Zuk shouldn't be covered somewhere, rather that she shouldn't have a standalone article. Arguments for retention are not backed with sourcing to support it. Star Mississippi 23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Zuk

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

Article sourced to Evertise AI PR, blogs, listings and paid promotions, the subject - a Polish model, fashion influencer, entrepreneur, and philanthropist - fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, United Arab Emirates, and Poland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the sources do look like PR work, but this [2] and this [[3]] can weigh toward inclusion. As with other models and "influencers", I would like to see how discussion is going on and see how to treat it further. Mag2k (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only note that 'New York Weekly Times' is NOT the NYT supplement and has no identified editorial team. The l'Officiel coverage is from the Indian licensee and the tone is deeply suspect... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a poorly sourced advertorial about a BLP. Bearian (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has received coverage in established fashion magazines, including FHM India and L'Officiel, which are recognized international publications. Additional profiles show sustained media attention beyond routine PR. Given her recognition over several years and coverage in multiple publications, the article shows enough verifiablity for someone in the fashion industry. The subject appears to meet WP:GNG; the article can be improved for neutrality rather than deleted outright. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two sources cited seem notable (at least, based on what has blue links in publisher info in refs). But [4] does not seem like a SIGCOV, [5] is somewhat better. But overall I agree that sourcing we have is week and mostly PR-ish. Can anyone thing of a good place to redirect this? The fact that her article is linked only from disambig pages does not bode well (but we also have a sysbias in fashion topics, I feel...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was the best I could find -24hip-hop.com/eva-zuk-the-multi-faceted-maven-of-beauty-intellect-and-philanthropy/, not sure it's a RS. Most of the sources in the article aren't ranked by Cite Highlighter, FHM looks to be the best, but it's still not enough. The source I found is on the wiki black list, so it's not a valid source... Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. :Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 15:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has appeared on the cover of various magazines, such as FHM India [6] with an article all about her: [7]. I think a prominent article on the person in a widely read publication is good evidence of notability so I've stopped looking - however, there are other magazines shown on her Instagram page (which has 1.4 million followers) if folks wish to check further [8]. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one magazine source isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has multiple independent media features across various publications, including lifestyle and fashion magazines, which provide significant coverage beyond simple promotional content. These sources demonstrate notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines. I am also willing to continue improving the article by adding more reliable references and maintaining a neutral tone. Shadi94 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia is this comment. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough prominent magazine covers to qualify as WP:NMODEL Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Piotrus, does it make sense to create a List of Polish models similar to the List of South Korean models based on the Category:Polish female models, and then redirect this article to it? Kelob2678 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelob2678 A list like this is likely a good idea. I am pretty torn about notability of the subject here, but WP:SOFTDELETE by WP:ATD-R (and maybe merge a bit) to such a list would of course be superior to any hard delete. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I created the page and added Zuk's bio to it. I guess this article can now be redirected there. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I support redirecting there before any deletion, but I am still abstainin from casting a vote otherwise (read my vote as: if consensus is to delete, my vote becomes redirect). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received sufficient coverage in multiple independent publications, satisfying GNG. Deletion is therefore inappropriate given the availability of verifiable sources. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen this pattern over and over during my work on Women articles. Scholarship has repeatedly demonstrated that Wikipedia biographies about women are disproportionately nominated for deletion even when they meet inclusion criteria due to gender bias in both participation and content (Tripodi 2023 Demonstrates that even when biographies about women meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, they are more frequently considered non-notable and nominated for deletion). Coverage of women should be strengthened rather than engaging in these patterns of disproportionate scrutiny toward women whose work is documented in the media. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:47, 26 November 2025 (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.

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Saint Mleux

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

Fails WP:GNG; subject is solely known for their, thus far, two-year relationship with Charles Leclerc. All sources used in the article, primarily tabloids and fashion guides, reflect this. MB 2437 20:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Motorsport, Internet, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Known for being an "influencer" with coverage in France, in Madame Figaro [9] and to a lesser extent Marie Claire [10]. Most are about her boyfriend/spouse talking about her, but she's a fashion icon I guess. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All centred on her fashion choices at various Grands Prix with a small amount of background—there is no enduring, independent notability to Charles Leclerc. MB 2437 21:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage in Belgium [11], [12]. Most are "why the world is obsessed with her", but it's coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Per french language coverage. Mag2k (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a partner to somebody notable won't make one notable. The only one source independent of her relationship consists of entirely fashion shoots - still won't make one notable. Will stand a chance if she has notable of her own without her partner. BuffaloTaro (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. English Wikipedia doesn't employ the principle of WP:INHERITED notability, i.e., just being the partner/spouse/girlfriend of someone notable doesn't indiciate notability. The sources cited are mostly tabloid media sources, and they are very superficial in the descriptions they give. In other words, it's just trivial coverage. The sources literally put more effeort into describing the subject's clothing than describing anything that indicates notability. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable here. Johannes Maximilian said it best... Wikipedia doesn't employ the principle of WP:INHERITED notability. I would also point out this was a failed/rejected Draft article, that despite being rejected at AFC, was pushed through anyway. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that this changes much, but the two-year relationship point may be a little more permanent.[13] MB 2437 18:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Charles Leclerc#Personal life: No inherited notability, true; however, I believe there may still be some sufficient coverage to warrant a redirect rather than outright deletion. – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 19:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Oppose redirect or merge. We don't start creating redirects based on the romantic lives of BLPS. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.4meter4 (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2025 (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.

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 merge. The discussion since the last relist is about a proposed merge. This discussion should take place as a WP:PROM at Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices. (non-admin closure) 11WB (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geniocracy

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

I found this page from the recently deleted page Noocracy and I was thinking they could be combined but as I did more research into this page I found that there aren't independent sources to back it up. I think a redirect to Raëlism or perhaps some amount of merging should be done instead of purely deleting the page. You can find the amazing Aliens Adored book to read the only major source I could find about the topic and its pretty light itself. Moritoriko (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, and France. Moritoriko (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote keep, as the person who tagged this with "sources exist", but the article isn't in a great state, so I would also be fine with merge. Aliens Adored does have sigcov of the idea, but there is also sigcov in several other books in academic journals, like Alien Worlds [14], The New Heretics [15] (same author as Aliens Adored but worth considering in combination) Urban's 2015 book [16], a full page in Mayer's 1993 book [17] analysing the idea, this article [18]. Lots of other shorter mentions too [19] [20] [21] [22]

This idea also garnered the Raelians specific criticism and was involved in some of their legal proceedings, and is the main reason they lost a pretty big court case I believe [23] [24] lots of news coverage that mentions it [25], criticism in various anti-cult books e.g. [26]

All in all, it does pass GNG, but the article isn't very good so a redirect/merge wouldn't be a horrible idea. Strongly oppose deletion proper. Note: in French, which most coverage on the Raelians is in, it is "géniocratie", so if anyone would like to do a further search you should try that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned I think deletion should be off the table but I think that this article which tries to exist half about the book with the same title, and half about the system (which only appears in relation to Raelians) is giving undue weight to something that is a small facet of their beliefs and un-used by anyone else. Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for finding french sources. Moritoriko (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't object much to a merge, but I do think it technically passes GNG. It's close enough where there is wiggle room per WP:PAGEDECIDE, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the page on Raëlism or Raël Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are good targets for this, the bio especially. The beliefs have their own article, so we can't put it in the main one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then merge to Raëlian beliefs and practices with a mention at Raëlism would work for you? I am saying this because I agree that there are many mentions of it but as they are all in the context of Raëlian beliefs but an independent article makes it seem like other people support the idea. Moritoriko (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect altho I am not sure which is best. Sounds like a good idea tho. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus yet here. A Merge looks possible but without a target article agreement, Keep is a safer choice. But maybe a consensus will emerge over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Merging this page with Rael(ism) would remove the detail of the page due to the nessecary summarisation of merging. Zxilef (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD has been open for a significant amount of time. There was no further discussion after @Liz relisted a fortnight ago and only one !vote for keep in the past week. There looks to be either a very slim consensus for keeping the article or no consensus at all. This will be the third and almost certainly, the final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for merge target: Moritoriko (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA @Zxilef @Metallurgist, In order to keep this from closing as no-consensus I thought I'd try to have a further discussion here and ping yall.

Parakanyaa informed me above that the article Raëlian beliefs and practices already exists which I was unaware of when I started the AfD and I think it is a much better merge destination as it already talks about the page topic at Raëlian beliefs and practices#Ideas of how government and the economy should run.
Zxilef said that merging would remove detail (that should be kept) so I want to know what details in this page are important enough to keep?
Metallurgist, what do you think about the new merge target?

Moritoriko (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fairly long, and would have to be summarised. It could also be adopted by movements that are not related to Raelism due to its basic principles. Zxilef (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that was vauge. Detail that could be lost is: Justifying the method of selection, and See also. Zxilef (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for adding some concrete things that you are worried about. I agree about the Justifying section, however I think the See also section is too broad as it is and would trim it down regardless of keep/merge result here. Moritoriko (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. I didnt specify a target for m/r. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and expanded the section in Raëlian beliefs and practices about geniocracy as if I were to merge it. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Moritoriko (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still vote keep but the beliefs and practices article is fine I guess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2025 (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.

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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 03:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Goffi

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

Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Military, and France. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the coverage below, the subject meets WP:GNG:
- 462 words of coverage: Guérin, Emmanuel (30 August 2011). ""Ouvrir le débat sur la morale des armées"". La Provence (in French).
- Some independent coverage of him (the rest of the article is an interview): "DRONES on the battlefield". Winnipeg Free Press. 28 January 2015.
  Emmanuel Goffi has dedicated his life to examining the ethics of the use of force -- first as an officer in the French air force for 22 years, now as a doctoral student and University of Manitoba lecturer in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies. Goffi will be speaking Friday on drones and the future of war during the 31st annual U of M Political Studies Students' Conference running today through Friday. The forum on politics, defence and security will have as its focus, "The Legacy of Great Wars: Marking History and Humanity."
- ~~Around 223 words of coverage on him: "Interview - Emmanuel R. Goffi". E-International Relations. 21 February 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2025. [Removed quote.]~~
- At least 34 words of coverage on him: Manroubia-Porteous, Jean-Baptiste (2018). La Persistance du Recours à la Force à Travers la légitime défense Internationale: Le Cas de la légitime défense Internationale Invoquée Contre des Actes de Terrorisme (in French). Paris: L'Harmattan. ISBN 9782140057700. Retrieved 26 October 2025.
  Emmanuel Goffi est un capitaine de l'armée de l'air française , spécialiste des études de sécurité et des relations internationales . Il est actuellement enseignant chercheur à l'Université de Manitoba au Canada et chercheur associé au...
  
  Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text from E-International Relations appears to just be a standard biographical note that would often be provided by the author or based on what their own institutional profile page says about them, rather than being written independently by a journalist. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck accordingly. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Winnipeg Free Press dedicated only one introductory sentence to Goffi. Excerpt from Google Books continues as follows, associé au Centre d'Études et de Relations Internationales de Sciences Po Paris . 20 Voir extra p . 131 . 21 Voir extra p . 131. Le réalisme , en tant que grand courant théorique et paradigme dominant ... This is probably just a footnote that explains who the author of a cited work is. The first reference is unavailable, so it cannot be checked. I didn't find any reviews for the book for which he was the single author. His citation count is rather low, mostly due to works focused on AI ethics. The references in the article are either to Goffi himself or return 404. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure sure how I would be able to show the extent of the coverage in the La Provence article without it being a copyright violation but it certainly contains in-depth coverage of him. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that I had no opinion on whether that source counts towards GNG. But even if it does, one source is not enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final attempt for quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2025 (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.

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 no consensus. Views are split between keeping the article outright or merging with another, principally Trebor (composer). As these can be both be done by simple editing, without administrator assistance, there is no further need for a deletion debate, as there is definitely not any consensus to delete the article outright. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borlet

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

Single, non-publicly accessible source. Googling to find other sources only results in sites which link back to this same page. No WP:NMUSIC or WP:V Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor but notable figure, with highly authoritative source. A web-only search will not produce acceptable results in this area. It should not have been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists which is for visual artists only. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a little more as to how it meets our notability standards? Is there really WP:SIGCOV? The very short stub essentially says "We know very little about him, including his name and identity. We can confirm he composed between 1 and 7 compositions." Is this really enough to support a stand-alone article? I'm struggling a bit to see the encyclopedic value of a short stub so devoid of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally apply exactly the same standards to medieval and earlier figures as to contemporary ones. The article probably contains everything that is known about him, which obviously is very little indeed. He was considered important enough to be included in the standard reference work, which in itself is probably enough for notability. There are thousands of comparable examples. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that its not likely to come across a 2025 New York Timess feature on a subject like this, but I'm also not convinced that mere mentions like that are enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Are you alluding to some guideline I'm unfamiliar with or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His own entry in the standard encyclopedia on the subject is not a "mere mention"; it's just that next to nothing is known, so the biographies there and here can't be any longer. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I'll reword my stance accordingly: I don't believe an entry in a standard encyclopedia is enough to establish any sort of notability standards, particularly when said entry is devoid of any real substance because nothing is known. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability is substantiated here. I checked GScholar just now and the mentions for Borlet are essentially all the same as the mentions for Trebor (composer) because they're believed to be the same person. Therefore at the very least I think a merge with Trebor is in order, but given that even the sources I can find for that article are essentially "some compositions exist which are attributed to someone called Trebor" I don't think we have notability in a Wikipedia sense here at all, so I think deleting both Borlet and Trebor (which I've also made an AfD for) makes sense. Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is where I'm leaning too. I could technically see creating a redirect to Trebor, which pretty much already covers the (very little) verifiable information about Borlet, but the argument for Trebor's notability is pretty weak too. There's definitely not enough here for 2 standalone articles, though at least Trebor has verifiable information in it... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against a merge, but you popular culture types need to understand that notability is not affected by whether there is information online or not. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast aspersions - no one has asserted sourcing needs to be online thus far in the discussion. That's not the reason you're getting pushback. You're getting pushback because you aren't actually citing or invoking anything. You just keep making WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSNOTABLE WP:ATAs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is the entry in the references section; there are books mentioned in Further Reading. Google Scholar has a considerable number of books with significant coverage on him; they include https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-music-history/article/abs/an-episode-in-the-south-ars-subtilior-and-the-patronage-of-french-princes/4F5EA81CC0345A850C971836859832A6 ; https://search.proquest.com/openview/d9810dfdb21e258c9b6bc2f87da5f874/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y The polyphonic virelai "He tres doulz rossignol" attributed to him is one of the most notable pieces of the genre. Plenty of other sources exist; https://www.persee.fr/doc/caief_0571-5865_1979_num_31_1_1185 and so on. e.ux 20:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV necessitates that the sources in question address the subject 'directly and in detail.'

The first source is about how these Medieval French sources have been preserved, and the latter literally says its aim is only to transcribe the unpublished chansons of the Chantilly manuscript.

To my eyes, the only relevance of these sources to Borlet/Trebor are that he is passingly mentioned within them as composer of some of these pieces, which is pretty plainly trivial coverage. The third source you've linked is a French-language source which I'm not equipped to assess.

Could you be more specific about how you feel these sources demonstrate in-depth, specific coverage of the subject? Athanelar (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They analyse his work -stylistically-; some dwell on his possible identification with other musicians -various authors support more or less assertively and with different arguments the Trebor hypothesis. These are no passing mentions, nor trivial coverage, and plenty of other sources exist. But as creator of one of the most notable virelai of the time, he could, one could argue, meet the specific notability guidelines anyway -like Wikipedia:CREATIVE; it may remain a short article -but it is not that short-;- if everyone agrees a redirect and merge to Trebor is better, it might be an acceptable solution too, but things are clearer this way -and fairer- imv; outright deletion would be absolutely inappropriate, I think; coverage on him in various other languages abounds, fwiw- and please also check the information in https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM065.HTM e.ux 20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also meets WP:COMPOSER..."Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music." e.ux 20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trebor (composer). I came to this discussion via Trebor, who I strongly believe is notable: see my comments at that AfD. I think Eva's point on WP:NCOMPOSER carries some merit given the inclusion in Grove, so I'm somewhat opposed to outright deletion. However, from my literature review, Borlet clearly receives much less coverage than his doppelganger. There is also a lot of overlap – they may be the same person after all, and as such the vast majority of potential sources with more substantial coverage speak about Borlet in relation to Trebor. I do note the fairly imposing further reading section but, of the Chantilly scholars that speak of Borlet, Plumley, Brown, Goméz, and Reaney all treat him this way, while Earp and Apel (1 and 2) only give scarce passing mentions. So I end up here offering a middle ground with a merge: not on notability grounds or as an ATD, but per WP:OVERLAP. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from A Ballade for Mathieu de Foix: Style and Structure in a Composition by Trebor

"On Trebor/Robert/Trebol/Borlet, see especially Maria del Carmen Gomez Muntané, La Música en la casa real catalano-aragonesa durante los años 1336-1432, vol. 1 : "Historia y Documentos" (Barcelona, 1977), pp. 99-101.[27] The Chantilly manuscript attributes only a single realistic virelai to Borlet ("He tres doulz roussignol"), whereas Trebor is assigned six ballades and no virelais.

Since stylistic differences between genres are at least as great as stylistic differences between individual composers, it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that the composer of "He tres doulx roussignol" was or was not the same as the composer of the six ballades on stylistic grounds alone. No music is known to be attributed either to Robert or to Trebol."

So two scholars say Borlet and Trebor are different persons. A merge wouldn't be appropiate. 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)~ — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As noted above, I took both the Brown and Goméz sources into consideration when drafting my !vote. The justification for my arguement is not identity, as you infer. Most scholarship on Borlet is related to the possibility they were the same person: this shows they are "related subjects that have a large overlap" (WP:OVERLAP), which is enough reason for a merge on its own. Also, you are misreading the sources. Brown claims it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that [Borlet] was or was not the same as [Trebor] (emphasis added). His phrasing leaves open both the possibility that they are connected or are not, which your conclusion incorrectly parses. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't need hard confirmation on this to warrant a merge or mention there, just that reliable sources cover them together, which they clearly do. The complexity of the situation can be covered in the prose. It'd be pretty easy to cover at the forefront of the article too, considering the lack of content. Even the sloppiest of merges wouldn't escalate the resulting article out of stub status... Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just clearly a case of consulting Google over subject-matter expertise. Any merging that might arise can and should be handled separately from this discussion on the talk page, based on scholarly consensus. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Trebor (composer) - basically I agree with UpTheOctave!'s analysis of the sources, and think that readers will be best served by a single article that covers the composer(s) and the scholarship surrounding whether they are the same person or not. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jolielover♥talk 18:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor per previous discussion.

Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor (composer): Users UpTheOctave!, Eva UX, Sergecross73 and others have made good arguments about enough scholarly debate (although not enough historical evidence), so I think a deletion is not warranted. i agree that a merge with info on the identity controversy would be much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG as the composer is included in several music reference works as well as in scholarly books/journals. Because scholars do not agree that these two composers are the same person, editorially I think it is better to keep them separate. Lastly, any person covered with an entry in any published encyclopedia will pass our criterion for inclusion per WP:5P1. Our foundational goal is to cover the sum of all human knowledge and pillar one specifically grandfathers in content covered in encyclopedias and specialized encyclopedias. Its an anathema to our founding mission to exclude any content published in any encyclopedia (unless there is some reason to believe its unreliable) as principally our founding goal is to gather all topics covered in all reference works into a single location. In short, if a topic is covered in an encyclopedia we cover it too. Period.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2025 (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.

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 no consensus. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Leroux

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure how deep of a dive was done, but there seems to be quite a few mentions in French newspaper archives for coverage. Admittedly, I didn't do a very deep dive either, but was able to find this article which details the French gymnastics national championship which the subject won back-to-back with the title being "L'Alsacien Georges Leroux Est Champion de France de Gymnastique" or "Alsatian Georges Leroux is French Gymnastics Champion". Additional mentions found here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's only via retronews.fr, it looks like there's even more coverage on gallica.bnf.fr and likely other repositories. GauchoDude (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics unless sources are added through editing. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC for being built entirely from a single database source. Note, that to keep the article at least one source must be present in the article with WP:SIGCOV that is not a database per SPORTSBASIC. It is not enough to merely identify sources under that guideline because there is a source presence requirement. Editing must happen or we should redirect/delete this.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see a source review of sources presented by User:GauchoDude.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per above, I am in no way saying that that's the only source material that exists. I'm merely sharing that I was able to find that within 5 minutes of searching for this AfD. It would be wholly unwise for someone to base their decision on what I was able to quickly find without others also digging with a bit of a specialty. Given that he lived in a pre-internet era in a non-English language country, we run the risk of our Wikipedia biases dictating our content here, especially if those who have less experience with searches like this ultimately dictate the outcome, which further reinforces those biases (more: WP:SBEXTERNAL). Not to pile on even more sources for a point that's not mine to prove, I took 5 more minutes and was able to find this fairly substantitive article and that he was the French national artistic gymnastics for three years running in addition to his Olympic appearance and further athletic mentions/accomplishments/reports here, here, here, and here. There's plenty out there, clearly. GauchoDude (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (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.

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 no consensus. ✗plicit 14:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Cryptofiler

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

Page has multiple issues that have not been resolved, starting 8 years ago; the article content is not well-cited and the topic does not appear to be notable. Twillfactor (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. e.ux 21:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 21:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources here that are significant coverage are enough to meet WP:GNG. As for the other issues, they are not a reason to delete the page (see WP:NOTCLEANUP). Cornerstone1949 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, the entire lead: "Acid Cryptofiler is a cryptographic software program designed by the department for "control of information" (Centre d'Electronique de l'Armement) of the French General Directorate of Armament (Direction générale de l'armement). It is an online storage service. The software is now manufactured by ACID Technologies (France)." comes from here (copy and pasted) :https://dbpedia.org/page/Acid_Cryptofiler so probably some editing should be done. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, problems have been pointed out but apparently they haven't been strong enough to convince an editor to argue for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 1 November 2025 (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.

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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

François Duhamel

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

Can find no evidence of signifcant coverage of reliable sources so fails WP:SPORTCRIT. GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The third source by Svartner is significant coverage but not enough to keep an article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable unreferenced BLP. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I found this in a rapid search: [28], [29], [30]. Svartner (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which (for my basic French) appear to show notability. Giant Snowman 18:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Source 1 is a routine match preview with a few sentences on Duhamel. Source 2 is a routine contract signing story and source 3 contains more info on him but nowhere near a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in English Keep in French If this page exists on the Wikipedia France site I'd say keep it and delete the English one. It appears that WP:SIGCOV exists in French but is limited for English. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653: That doesn't make much sense to me. WP:SIGCOV is SIGCOV, regardless of the language. It appears that WP:SIGCOV exists in French Where? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653 can you explain your reasoning here? SIGCOV, as Robby.is.on said, does not care about the language. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has some reporting in the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chesterfield/5144452.stm I found an ESPN stub page, but I found more coverage of him in French sources: https://www.leballonrond.fr/joueur/francois-duhamel/54788 https://www.foot-national.com/data/1137-2172-328-saison-football-Duhamel-Francois.html https://saint-malo.maville.com/sport/detail_-saint-malo.-francois-duhamel-un-nouvel-attaquant-pour-les-diables-noirs_52701-2351317_actu.Htm Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article is a transfer report, i.e. routine coverage; Foot National is a database profile; LeBallonRond, another database, is unreliable per WP:WPFLINKSNO. So these three don't contribute to WP:SIGCOV. The Maville article, another transfer report, has a short paragraph about Duhamel, but it's not enough for me. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more input on whether the French-language sources are deemed sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

11:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for delete unless more sources come up. Gawrawiki (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above and sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2025 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France

France

Lorraine Baumann

Yoann Chauvière

Jane Zemiro

Philippe François Armand Marie de Noailles

Eva Zuk

Alexandra Saint Mleux

Geniocracy

Emmanuel Goffi

Borlet

Georges Leroux

Acid Cryptofiler

François Duhamel

Others

France-related Categories for deletion

France-related Deletion reviews

France-related Miscellaneous deletions

France-related Proposed deletions

France-related Redirects for deletion

France-related Templates for deletion

See also