Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frédéric Dieudonné

Add links
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 delete. joe deckertalk to me 00:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Dieudonné[edit]

Frédéric Dieudonné (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was first written as an autobiography and userfied. It has been re-created by a user with no other areas of interest. It contains a number of references, only three of which include the name of the subject. One of these is a press release, the other two are mere namechecks in reviews. None of the sources is an independent biographical source about the subject. Google shows clear evidence of brand-building but not, as far as I can tell of encyclopaedic notability as we define it: non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. That, combined with the SPA issue and past autobiography, leads me to suspect astroturfing. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV - the LA Times articles appear to be about events only tangentially about the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have carefully reviewed the case. Whoever wrote, or contributed to write this article, it is more than relevant. There are numerous references on google about this writer, producer, film maker. I believe people who have a serious activity and cultural impact and are famous for those reasons, have their place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tool to learn more about projects, people, notions. I've always found abusive deletion as a dangerous method for denial. It's all should be balanced. These references are more than valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron943 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Byron943 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Can't agree with Gene93k, Bearian or whoever those users are. This article has nothing to do with an autobiography. It is fully worthwhile, as well as its independent references. Coverage of the subject is nontrivial and trustworthy. I object to this article's deletion.Spacer999 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacer999 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Spacer999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. I don't quite get this zeal to remove such knowledge from the encyclopedia, especially about a subject who brings education and entertainment to an international audience in a very significant way. Deemed notable by a list of unrelated reliable sources.Symphony1966 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphony1966 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Symphony1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep. Meets requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people): he is "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."; "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."; "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Seriously, how could this be considered for deletion?Julie Podcol (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Julie Podcol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete- Read all provided references; sum total of all coverage is the foundation of the festival in 1992 and no biographic information; searched AP, Reuters, and major news venues separately, but results provide no non-trivial in-depth coverage; would pass WP:N as long-standing festival co-founder, but clearly fails WP:RS. Dru of Id (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting due to sockpuppetry. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Refs are insufficient to establish notability. Flurry of eager socks also suggests that this is a puff-piece. Yunshui (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is legitimate writer, producer, film director and event planner mentioned and interviewed in various notable media. He does have a certain degree of fame on the Internet. Clearly of interest to Wikipedia users.Jeanpichan (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Jeanpichan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I think the nom nailed it - the ghits show evidence of brand-building but not of encyclopedic notability. The reference section is misleading - there are a lot of links, but none of them have significant coverage of Dieudonné. It might be worth looking at the Jean-Christophe Jeauffre entry, too - he's a colleague of Dieudonné's - both entries have similar sources and similar tenuous claims of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:N guidelines with the sources provided. The references are passing mentions or individual quotes or Dieudonné rather than articles that illustrates the biography of the individual, such as in an interview or a review of his work. I Jethrobot (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Notable. What would Wikipedia gain by deleting this page? It's informative, the works of the subject have been widely reported to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramelog (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Cramelog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete The biggest problem with this biography is how poorly written the introduction is. It only states his birthday and that he is a member of a non-notable club, the French Explorers Club. Both of these statements don't explain how he is notable. Minima© (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frédéric_Dieudonné&oldid=1142198006"