Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean de Metz

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The result was - Withdrawn by nominator - Peripitus (Talk) 10:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Metz

Fails WP:N. Jean de Metz was a footnote to history whose name has come down to us only for one sub-notable reason: he escorted Joan of Arc for a few days on an uneventful journey. Jean de Metz (and Bertrand de Poulengy, also described on the page) were not noblemen, not knights, and their existence was not recorded in conjunction with anything else. The only source linked is personal website. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cipher in some ways, but notable in that he has been given detailed attention by sources, and sometimes exaggerated depiction by fictional treatments of Joan of Arc. On the other hand, either he and Poulengy (and whomever else) get combined into an article "Companions of Joan of Arc" or they get separate pages. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What detailed attention do you mean? Which sources? The only source provided for this article is a personal webpage that fails WP:RS. Durova^Charge! 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hate conversations like this; I really, really do. It makes me not want to enter AFDs at all. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, your latest edit prompted me to find this and this which provide useful background to this nomination. It may have been better to explain that there was sockpuppetry and self-promotion involved from the beginning. --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't mention that history in the original nomination because no connection to that individual appeared in the article until after I nominated this page for deletion. Then another editor tried to rescue the article and added faulty references, including a link to that sitebanned vandal's website. It's reasonable that a well-meaning editor would do so by accident; the fellow's website gets a high Google index. Per WP:DENY I don't mention him unless the reason is compelling. Durova^Charge! 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a minor historical figure, but a historical figure nonetheless who has become closely associated with the history and mythology of Joan of Arc. I could easily see a brief survey comparing academic opinions of him, his representation in fictionalised and semi-historical accounts such as literature and cinema, and so on. These bits of information are much better presented in a short single-subject article than as part of the larger Joan of Arc article. I will say, though, I am a strong inclusionist when it comes to historical figures. --Stomme (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What possible fictional coverage could he get that isn't already encompassed at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc? Durova^Charge! 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verifiable and known historical figure. I've completely reworked the page, adding multiple reliable sources to prove notability, as well as a related link. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I had to delete two of those four sources because they failed WP:RS and the remaining two are incomplete because no page numbers are cited. One of those two books happens to be in my personal library and I'll be checking the article facts cited against the index, but at this moment not a single fact on the page is properly referenced. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am confident, then, that you will find the references I have added in order. I am happy to discuss any discrepancies with you. I am sure that you are exercising good faith with me and that you are not merely making it difficult because of the prior history. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not convinced that every historical figure needs a page. However, in order to decide this case, I will definitely need the page numbers for these 300-page books. Please cite the page numbers where this information can be found in each book. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, I don't have the time to meet this particular requirement; I'm not working on a WP:FA here. Google Books offers a search feature which should meet your needs. --Dhartung | Talk 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers are a requirement of Wikipedia's citation policy for all articles - see WP:CITE#HOW. Readers should not have to hunt through the book themselves. I'm really surprised that you would suggest this. Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the notability of the topic for inclusion, and not its compliance with the manual of style. I am quite sure that it can be improved in that way, but it is not a requirement for this AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Metz is a figure who is well-known in history. He's important enough to have his own article as far as I can tell. Malinaccier (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - perferrably into Joan of Arc or some other related page. I do not feel, along with several others that this person sustains enough action to be defined as notable. In addition, I would agree that if more information is found on the topic that defines its notability, I have no qualms on it staying. Even in its current state, it still doesn't work out. There are also problems above that don't help either.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 23:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you would be more specific about the "problems above" that would be helpful. I have uncovered some information relating to the nomination that may answer your questions. As for "more information", there are 275 results in Google Books (which is a reasonably healthy number) and Google Scholar offers some as well (with overlap). There are even some Google News Archive hits for this 15th century fellow. --Dhartung | Talk 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent sources. He was not an incidental bystander, but her lieutenant. Significant in both an historical and fictional context. The rest of the material should be added. DGG (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced figure in extraordinary story of J of A. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment and nomination withdrawal - I find it rather extraordinary that the consensus is to keep, but the page is adequately sourced now. If someone feels compelled to generate articles for all of the 112 other witnesses at Joan of Arc's rehabilitation trial, we now have a precedent. Durova^Charge! 08:29, 2 June 2008 (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.