Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Lemaire


 * 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. Sock votes discarded, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin Lemaire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person appears not to be notable by our standards. The references in the article appear trivial in the extreme – I don't immediately see even one independent reliable source with in-depth cover of the subject. A G-news search does yield some hits – according to Le Figaro, he was imprisoned for aggravated corruption and aggravated assault of minors in October 2016; however, I don't find any confirmation of this report in any other mainstream news source. Even if the sexual abuse allegation proves to be true and documented, it does not make him notable. I can't see why we need an article on him.

Note: this is not the Benjamin Lemaire who started 'Le vin tout simplement', nor the sixteen-year-old cyclist of the same name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Further note: I removed a number of "publications" from the article as the publisher was Neverland Editions. Until a couple of hours ago, this page read "Neverland est une jeune maison d'édition indépendante créé par Ben Lemaire, Arthur Manderley et Etienne Charles pour défendre des projets engagés de expérimentaux. Bien que nos publications soient principalement orientées sur la poésie, nous sommes ouverts à tout type d'ouvrage à condition qu'ils aient une plume ..." (if you hurry and search for it on Google you may still see that text). It has since been changed, and the publications re-added to the article by . It's really, really hard to imagine that could be a co-incidence ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet another note: I've now also nominated for deletion Lilly Wood and The Prick au Trianon, about a video apparently made by Lemaire (Articles for deletion/Lilly Wood and The Prick au Trianon). I assume that non-notable video is what has referred to below as "1 notable feature accepted in WP"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note Given this new information, I would like to highlight (apart from the fact that only the puppets seem to be ok with keeping the article) that 95% of the contribution to this article were made by these sock puppets, given a good information on its unreliability as well as its not notableness. Giorgio69 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of indepth sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 1 notable feature accepted in WP, and 4 majors sources (TeleStar, Slate, Gala, 20 Minutes, all big french medias) MangoZona (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — MangoZona (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep secondary sources are present Ninobalto222 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Ninobalto222 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. What the nomination says. (And if he is an "emerging" whatever, then let's wait till he has emerged.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Upper reasons, plus this should be rewritten from top to bottom and sources researched again. Too many unverifiable facts and wrong / biased references. Giorgio69 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are there, secondary sources, I see no problem IamAGecko (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — IamAGecko (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Lot of COI here (for and against as fare as I see) but person notable anyway. Liloula2200 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — Liloula2200 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The following accounts are sock puppets: Liloula2200, IamAGecko, Ninobalto222, and MangoZona. See Sockpuppet investigations/IamAGecko.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (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.