Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine de Mouchy
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 per withdrawal of nomination with no one advocating deletion. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antoine de Mouchy[edit]
- Antoine de Mouchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Only notability I see established is that the article is incorporated from a Catholic Encyclopedia. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N. SRX 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please explain the relevance of BLP to a sixteenth century person. Please explain why a rector of the University of Paris is not notable. And please note that inclusion in a specialist encyclopedia is prima facie evidence that a topic is notable in its field. Why are you dismissing an encyclopedic topic, in other words? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough in Scholar to help build a decent article. While the current article doesn't quite establish notability that's a different issue than the person not being notable. TravellingCari 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? The University of Paris was Europe's leading academic institution of the time. The Corpus was the major legal text regulating the Catholic Church, Europe's leading religious institution of the time. The Council of Trent defined Catholicism for 300 years, and de Mouchy was the theologian of a very powerful Cardinal there. Please tell me you're kidding. This person sits squarely on a historical crossroads. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment responding to me? I said keep. He is notable. The current article isn't very encompassing and doesn't explain it, but I didn't say he wasn't notable. TravellingCari 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm grateful for the support. I'm just astonished at the formulation: given that the Catholic Encyclopedia was written for people who would know the background quite well, it would be fairly elliptic. But there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the CE's verdict that this person was notable need be contested. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the nom will come back and explain his/her reasons. For someone who isn't willing to do a little digging, de Mouchy might not appear notable from the state of the article. Hopefully someone will improve it. TravellingCari 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrug. Drive-by nomination with Twinkle. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I invited him to come back. I use Twinkle, can't fault the tool. It's all about how it's used. TravellingCari 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrug. Drive-by nomination with Twinkle. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the nom will come back and explain his/her reasons. For someone who isn't willing to do a little digging, de Mouchy might not appear notable from the state of the article. Hopefully someone will improve it. TravellingCari 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm grateful for the support. I'm just astonished at the formulation: given that the Catholic Encyclopedia was written for people who would know the background quite well, it would be fairly elliptic. But there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the CE's verdict that this person was notable need be contested. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment responding to me? I said keep. He is notable. The current article isn't very encompassing and doesn't explain it, but I didn't say he wasn't notable. TravellingCari 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - BLP doesn't apply; the person is dead. Also, the page was created at 14:39 - it was nominated for deletion two minutes later. The nominator should of given the article a chance. D.M.N. (talk) 18:11, 8 August 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.