Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marius Dewilde

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Dewilde[edit]

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

No sources except a dead link, and online search only turns up mentions on fringe blogs. mikeman67 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Fringe sources need cleaning out, but the topic is notable. Apparently Dewilde got a lot of coverage in 1950s France. Disinterested academics discuss the media's distortion and cultural impact of his tale: [1], [2]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That means it was essentially WP:ONEEVENT and against WP:NOT#NEWS. Particularly in the mid 20th century, a person claiming an extra-terrestrial encounter that generated temporary media coverage can hardly be said to be notable. It's not like there's even a section of the book dedicated to him (let alone an entire book or article), it looks like just a page in the book as an example. mikeman67 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some Frenchie is going to have to work on this one. A lot of the reliable-looking sources were in French. I realize blogs aren't reliable sources to reference, BUT the way I look at it, if he's important enough that that crowd is talking about him, people are going to be coming here looking for him, and if people are coming here looking for him, that's notable enough in my book. Bali88 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 22 March 2014 (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.