Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolves of Paris

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves of Paris

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

This article contains two references, one of which is to a vanity press, and both of which seem of dubious reliability. No citations are provided for any of the (short) text to these references. Most of the online subject matter using this title regards gay erotica, fiction of the event, or is fork or mirror. There is also Metaphorical Representations of the French Revolution in Victorian Fiction from JSTOR, which suggests the term was created as a metaphor about enemies (I can't access the text, but the Google Scholar snippet view gives this impression.) Mind matrix 18:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-I absolutely agree it's low-quality. Given contemporary references to some of these events - Alexandre Tautey's 1880s edition of Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, written by a 15th-century cleric (see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_d%27un_bourgeois_de_Paris) - I do wonder if further research would be beneficial, or if the article should simply note that while this has been written about extensively - by, for example, Mark Twain - there's little primary proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.18.27 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This relies way too much on Lulu.com and Edwin Mellen Press, neither of which is reliable. The Simon-Schuster book, Of Wolves and Men looks to be a literary analysis of wolf stories. Barry Lopez mentions the story of Courtaud but doesn't seem to definitively state if it's fact or fiction. Not unlike Beast of Gévaudan, I think this story conflates details of actual wolf attacks thereby assembling a tale. Were the article written per WP:WAF it could be passable but using questionable sources that assert it's true, I have to say no. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the matters of hands being actual accuracy and other information relevancy is enough, and this is not an easy subject to help clear such concerns. Delete as there's nothing currently convincing of what it is expected for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 7 June 2016 (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.