Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Couteaux


 * 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 to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

André Couteaux

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete nn author. Only 9 GHITS, all to film or book listings. Nothing substantial about the author that would amount to WP:N Mayalld (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the google test. This isn't always a valid reason unto itself, but it's a pretty good warning singn that this fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello!  23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple books in multiple languages in over 100 US and other libraries according to worldcat. Translated at least into English, German, Dutch, Spanish, and Finnish. One was made into a movie, that got a review in the NYTimes. He did the screenplay for another fairly well known film also. The inadequate article here does not seem to have listed them all, so I put them in, for at least the languages shown in worldCat.  Critical reviews almost certain, at least in French sources, & as a start there's the NYTimes.  Using the gtest for a European author whose works were published in the 1960s is the height of absurdity. I know people don't like using library catalogs, but they do work for finding basic information about published authors.  DGG (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability. The IMDB link only has 2 hits for 2 books from the 1960's. He certainly exists but doesn't appear notable/significant. Artene50 (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. At the top of his 9 gnews hits is the NYT review of his first book's translation. Googling is bad for non-English sources and much worse that far back in  the 20th. Getting good results requires real work. ( I think it actually gets better for 19th century people). So one has to correct for this and weigh results higher than usual.John Z (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a key reason it gets better in the 19th century is because of the increasing amount of material from Google Book Search, and from sources reprinting PR material. Unfortunately, the present state of copyright legislation will leave the 1921 cutoff with us for a long time to come. This will inevitable have a negative effect on our work at building a free encyclopedia, but we need to try to overcome it, even if it takes old-fashioned methods.  DGG (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:51, 12 August 2008 (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.