Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mon cher Mustapha letter

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mon cher Mustapha letter

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

This article is about deception in a 2004 local election that has no broader significance. The only reference is not notable and from a website that is not generally recognized as a broad-based news venue. The single reference mentions the letter in passing, i.e. it isn't the subject of the reference. Not all political deception, spin, and outright lies deserve their own article. This newsy item has clearly faded into obscurity. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you mean 1983, right, not 2004. I wouldn't expect that to show up in the Google. My French isn't great, but I can find reference to it in MRAP (NGO)'s house organ. Which probably doesn't establish notability in its own right. delete without prejudice to recreation based on proper sources? Morwen - Talk

Keep. It could potentially be merged with an article on the local election, if such an article existed. It is perfectly good to have articles on obscure things, if they were notable at one time. Everyking (talk) 22:01, 3 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 10 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an obscure urban legend. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 20 November 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, gwickwire | Leave a message 18:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified incident (the only reference is a highly POV opinion piece), and trivial even if it happened. Sounds like it might be related to Mustafa-letter which recounts a similar incident a few years later in Norway. (One of the characteristics of an urban legend is that similar stories crop up repeatedly in different locations.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 1 December 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.