Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitard


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bitard
fr:Discussion:Bitard/Suppression
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This appears to be a poorly translated page from French, much of which seems to focus on student activities around the University of Poitiers. It seems dubious to me that this is notable, though if it were cleaned up and referenced maybe I could be convinced otherwise. Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice in case it is rewritten and recreated. I have a feeling this brotherhood or tradition may be notable - it appears to be very ancient. But it's impossible to tell from the article in its present state. And everything at Google is either a mirror of this article or is written in French. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)



'Strong Keep Non-English sources and poor wording are ridiculous reasons to delete. Get someone who speaks French, or even take 10 seconds with Google Translate, and use the available sources. (That's directed at everyone, by the way, not just the poor !voter above that I'm picking on) So, yeah. I may strike this comment if it turns out not to be notable after all. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 07:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did post a request for help at Wikiproject France. In the absence of sources we can evaluate, and in the absence of any comprehensible explanation at the article, we can only delete; we can't keep around a nonsensical unsourced article just on the hunch that it might turn out to be notable if only we could prove it. If someone comes up with the evidence I will happily change my !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since you apparently have no opinion on whether the subject is notable or not, what are you basing your "strong keep" !vote on? --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you will gander at the discussion below, you will see that, as I suspected, it is in fact quite notable. My strong keep may, in retrospect, have been a bit hasty at the time, but I was trying to salvage a deletion discussion that was fading into anglo-centrism.  At this point, it seems justified, so I will keep my !vote as is.☻☻☻Sithman  VIII !!☻☻☻ 01:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I google-translated the French Wikipedia page and still have serious doubts about notability. Most of the page is based around a student organization, and most of the references on frwiki are either self-published or have gone dead.  Why is this an important student organization?  Neither page makes that clear.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Someone replied at Wikiproject France to say that the article Bitard on French Wiki was subjected to a deletion discussion in 2008 and the result was "keep". They also said (without giving the reference) that someone had written a masters degree dissertation on it. Unfortunately they did not make any improvements to the article we are discussing here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From looking at the article at French Wiki, the thesis they are referring to was probably this: Manuel Ségura, Le Folklore estudiantin poitevin : l'exemple de l'ordre du Bitard (loué soit-t'il !) du début des années 1920 à la fin des années 1980, sous la direction de J-N Luc, mémoire de DEA d'Histoire contemporaine, Poitiers, 1998, 124 pages. It does not appear to be available online. But could it be accepted as adequate sourcing for our article? --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

'Merge' with University of Poitiers. Well, yes there is a source, even available on-line (La chasse au Bitard des étudiants poitevins: Panurge bachelier C Escarmant, JL Le Quellec… - Etudes rabelaisiennes, 2006 PDF), but the subject is not very notable in France. The deletion debate on wp:fr in 2008 was keep but nobody took the time to make a decent article. --Anneyh (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a good solution and I would support it - provided there is somebody able to make enough sense out of the article to carry out the merge! --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article is now at a stage it could get merged... --Anneyh (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

'Strong Keep' This subject has been worthy of at least two news reports on French television, one from 22 March 1968, another from 30 May 2009. These, in addition to the scholarly articles already mentioned (with additional references in the footnotes), are in my opinion clear indications of the notability of the bitard. As to whether the article should be merged into the one on the University of Poitiers, my understanding of the sources (in particular the mention in the book Bestiaire poitivin -- a bestiary of the region of Poitiers) is that the bitard is a mythical creature of the region of Poitiers, and so, while students at the university currently maintain certain traditions connected to the bitard, it is in no way historically limited to the university. Finally, on the question of the quality of the article, this can always be improved. But deleting the article makes it much less likely that an improved version will emerge, and it will also be unnecessarily discouraging to those who have worked in good faith on early versions of the article. MyPOV (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2011 (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.