Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Mitterrand

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Mitterrand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fr.wiki article has several references Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: several good sources found in less than five minutes, like [1], [2], and probably [3]. BilletsMauves^€500 07:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands the English article says next to nothing and is useless. The French version is indeed better, and an English article based on it might be OK, but it's the job of people who want to keep it to do that. Even the French article fails to address the question that most readers coming to it for the first time will ask: what is the relationship between Jacques Mitterrand and François Mitterrand? Even if the answer is "none known" (which I doubt) it's still a response that ought to be given. Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but it's the job of people who want to keep it to do that. Absolutely not! ALL Wikipedia editors are equal and AfDd articles are NOT held hostage by a nominating class until a lower class of Wikipedian fixes an article! gidonb (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by BilletsMauves. The concerns mentioned by Athel cb do not amount to a case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO #3. Also speedy keep since no valid reason for deletion was provided. Can be combined since the outcome would be the same. These mistaken nominations happen when we do not work by WP:NEXIST. So a shoutout to this important section of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline! gidonb (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." Rathfelder (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! It may be kept and it may be deleted. This one will be kept. So when to AfD? WP:N puts it, big, bold, and named: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. AfD is not cleanup. When an article has no references and it is VERY notable, it should only be tagged with the correct template. Not AfDd. gidonb (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the sources found by BilletsMauves. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References from BilletsMauves now included. This clearly meets notability guidelines. JASpencer (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG per BilletsMauves's sources above. AfD is not cleanup and while I cannot stress enough that WP:BEFORE is not required, in this case it might have saved us all from having to have this discussion, as sources are very easily found making it obvious that this article does not suffer from a lack of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2022 (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.