Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Leclerc du Rose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Catherine Leclerc du Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Korruski (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Does not meet WP:BIO. No evidence of notability, almost unsourced, and I can find no further sources through my own searches.[reply]
- She is considered notable on French wp, as well as at several other language versions of wikipedia. On French wikipedia she is linked to a great number of articles. [[1]] Among them is the French version of this article: Molière's company, to which she will eventually be linked here as well, when that article is developed. She is further more already linked here. The members of Sociétaires of the Comédie-Française are all linked. Being a historical subject, it may be hard to find information in a search on the internet. I may also say that it is rude to accuse people of creating hoax-articles, which was an accusation originally put both on the motivation of the deletion-tag as well as at this page.--Aciram (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any more evidence of notability on the French article than I do on here, tbh. Regardless, though, the English article needs to show notability in its own right. Apologies for the hoax comment, though. It was my initial impression based on the fact that a biography was being added of a person with a lot of detail, but about whom I could find absolutely no other mention. Doesn't change my essential problem of notability, however. --Korruski (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She is considered notable on French wp, as well as at several other language versions of wikipedia. On French wikipedia she is linked to a great number of articles. [[1]] Among them is the French version of this article: Molière's company, to which she will eventually be linked here as well, when that article is developed. She is further more already linked here. The members of Sociétaires of the Comédie-Française are all linked. Being a historical subject, it may be hard to find information in a search on the internet. I may also say that it is rude to accuse people of creating hoax-articles, which was an accusation originally put both on the motivation of the deletion-tag as well as at this page.--Aciram (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These sort of articles tend to have support of notability buried in some print only resources. I'm convinced this is legitimate. Agreed that the article needs to show notability in its own right, but I'm convinced that will happen. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Numerous non-trivial google books hits under various variations of her name, e.g, [2], [3], [4], [5]. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - just because someone lived before the advent of the internet doesn't mean that sources are impossible to find. AbbyKelley seems to have found some, many more undoubtably exist, even in English. Probably a lot more in French. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hundreds of reliable sources are available here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2010 (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.