Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Établissement public à caractère administratif


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Établissement public à caractère administratif

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Primarily a directory of WP articles WP:NOT Nouniquenames (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Created by AfC (submission reviewed by Mdann52). Created just 2 days ago, so very young and everybody can help to improve. Contains explanations very useful of what is an Établissement public à caractère administratif in France. Already some links with other articles. Complementary with other articles such as Établissements publics à caractère industriel et commercial, ... Helps to improve English Wikipedia. I don't really understand this nomination for deletion to be honest. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP has a point. Even if he doesn't improve it at all, improvements are far more likely in the main space than hidden away in WP:AFC somewhere. Anyway, this article doesn't seem to violate WP:NOTDIR at all, as the links are included to direct readers to other related articles, not just to bulk out the article, therefore, I also say keep. Mdann52 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There's nothing wrong with this article and I think the nomination is based on a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia is not a directory". To quote the policy: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." This is a textbook example. Établissement public à caractère administratif is quite clearly a notable subject since it is an important part of the structure of French public administration and since the article provides a long list of notable entities that have this status. It is natural for the article to have this structure: an introduction explaining the concept followed by a list (exhaustive if it's reasonable in size). That's the structure of Independent agencies of the United States government and Crown corporations of Canada. Pichpich (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - So, the US, Canada, and France are allowed. No others?  :- ) Don  07:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above. --Lambiam 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pichpich. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Unquestionably notable, and fundamental to the the organisation of French civil society in the way that, say, Quango is in the UK. There is no policy in Wikipedia that prohibits an article from containing a list of such bodies. --AJHingston (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Something tells me such an article in the English Wikipedia would, in fact, have an English-language title (and be understandable without knowing French). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouniquenames (talk • contribs) 2012-07-08 03:04:21
 * Delete - A lot of things are notable, that does not mean they automatically get a page on the English Wiki. I don't know what "The Institut national supérieur de formation et de recherche pour l'éducation des jeunes handicapés et les enseignements adaptés" means, and if I did, I would probably be smart enough to use the French Wiki.  I don't come here to find who oversees the "National Taiwan Arts Education Center".  I don't have to, the website is in English and Chinese.  If the "The Institut national supérieur de formation et de recherche pour l'éducation des jeunes handicapés et les enseignements adaptés" is in French and English, then Keep.  Otherwise the "National Taiwan Arts Education Center" has more right to an article in the English Wiki.  We can't list every organization in every country in every language, just because someone whats to fill the English Wiki with their own personal project.  :- ) Don  23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have completely the wrong idea about the division between the Wikipedias in various languages, and a wholly wrong idea that something has "right" because it has an English name instead of a non-English one. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read Article titles. Article titles are written using the English language, with the exception of commonly used foreign words.  How is my idea about division in error?  Please, use recherche in an English sentence. Because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?  That is justification to keep adding Other Stuff?  This a slippery slope going straight to a morass of a post any old crap you want.  If I had the time, I would start converting ,中文維基百科, the Chinese wiki using Mandarin titles.  I don't see the difference.   :- ) Don  20:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is sheer nonsense and distraction. The English Wikipedia is not constrained to only English subjects, and its naming conventions nowhere say that it is.  Deletion policy definitely does not, and we don't delete things just because they are in France and have French names.  You really need to re-read policy, because you have no grasp of it.  Uncle G (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on the English Wiki, 帶我去遠方.  :- ) Don 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * keep. Per AJHingston. 90.84.144.39 (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not seeing anything in WP:NOT that would apply here, and while it might help to put more prose into the article as opposed to appearing to be primarily a list, I don't see this as a reason to delete the article. - SudoGhost 18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and let it snow. Clearly notable, only delete !vote has a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Does anyone have a complete understanding of how the Wikipedia works? You only need to read the rules, and the rules say titles shall be in English except for commonly used foreign words. It does not have an exception for foreign entity names. period.  :- ) Don  19:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're misreading that policy in more than one way. The point is that we use the title which would be commonly used in English sources but that sometimes happens to be written in a foreign language. This is absolutely fine and in fact you'll find many instances of this in all languages and in multiple contexts: Spanish (Universidad del Nuevo Mundo), Portuguese (Museu da Lourinhã), French (Belle de Jour (novel)), Italian (L'Avventura), Polish (Muzeum Etnograficzne im. Seweryna Udzieli w Krakowie) and so on. But what is most absurd about your position is the idea that a title in a foreign language should be grounds for deletion. We have a process in place for changing titles. A deletion debate should be solely centered on the content of the article. Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get the point. I'm wrong.  Change my vote to Keep, make it unanimous and close this issue.  I'm just not sure why they have a French Wiki any longer.  Based on the discussion here I have approved this which looks ludicrous in the English Wiki:   :- ) Don  00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, a cursory check for sources turns up an OECD book that covers the public sector in France that documents both EPAs and EPICs together as EPNs. Whether EPAs and EPICs are better dealt with separately or merged isn't really a matter for AFD, though, as it's wholly enactable entirely with the edit tool.  Uncle G (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an inherently notable part of French national administration. Yes it includes lists but they are not the article's sole raison d'être. Mcewan (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.