Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles-Joseph de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mduvekot (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Charles-Joseph de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've made an attempt at fixing the article, but it is so riddled with errors, half-finished translations and inaccuracies that I give up. The title doesn't match the subject, important claims are unsourced and sources fail verification. Delete per WP:TNT. Mduvekot (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Charles-Alexandre de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace so that title matches subject. The rest (poor English, poorly formatted source references)I think I've already taken care of.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that I think that Charles-Alexandre de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace or Charles Alexandre Marc Marcelin de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace, prince of Henin or Charles Alexandre Marc Marcellin d’Alsace is not the same person as Charles-Joseph de Hénin-Liétard d'Alsace. But if you think you can fix it, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Good luck. Mduvekot (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The only halfway reliable source for the "Charles-Joseph" name that I've found is the description of the portrait sold at Christie's, and all the biographical details there fit the man elsewhere referred to as "Charles-Alexandre". Might fall foul of WP:SYNTH, but deleting the portrait from the article should fix that. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been nominated way too fast. --Carolus (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think Mduvekot can be faulted for opening a deletion discussion a week after the article was created, when it has different names in title and lead, and the source references were not very clear. Rather than the timing, we should focus on the current state of the article. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find a single ref to confirm the subject existed, this could be a hoax. Sourcing is terrible. I support WP:TNT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You acuse me of creating hoax? Do i understand you right?--Carolus (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet there are half a dozen references in the article itself that would enable you to confirm the subject existed. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course he existed, we're just not sure about his identity and I didn't think it likely that we would be able to unambiguously determine who was who for lack of contemporary scholarship that we should not, because it would constitute original research, be doing ourselves using primary sources. Take the citation from Réimpression de l'Ancien Moniteur depuis la réunion des Etats-Généraux jusqu'au Consulat, Mai 1789 - Novembre 1799, vol. 20 (Paris, 1841), p. 192. for example, which reads "C.-A.-M.-C. d'Alsace de Bossu de Chimay, âgé de cinquante ans, né à Bruxelles, ex-prince d'Hénin, ex-capitaine des ci-devant gardes d'infâme d'Artois;" The dates match, 50 years old on 19 Messidor of the year 2. That's July 7 of 1794. So it's very likely the same guy. But the initials C.-A.-M.-C. match neither Charles Alexandre Marc Marcelin, nor Charles-Joseph. Same person? Probably. Do we know what his name was? Hardly.  has a bit of a history of coming up with his own ideosyncratic names, anglicizing, or gallicizing or latinizing them (ask me if you really want the details) and that leads to articles that are so confused that in my opinion, we're better off without them. Like I said, if it can be fixed, I'll withdraw the nomination. Mduvekot (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought we only counted newspaper reports as primary sources if they were interviews with the subject? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that what No_original_research says. Mduvekot (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It says that mainstream newspapers are among the most reliable sources. As far as that goes we're in the clear for using the Moniteur for details of the conviction. The identity of this victim (former prince of Hénin, former captain of the royal guard) as the subject of the article is given in what is clearly a secondary source: the editor's footnote to an edition of his mistress's memoirs. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Victim? He was found guilty in a court of justice and sentenced to death. Anyway, someone whose name we can't quite agree on clearly existed and did things that likely meet our notability guidelines. This is not a matter that belongs at AfD anymore. I'll withdraw the nomination. Give me a moment to wrap that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Revolutionary tribunal of the Terror - not exactly the sort of place you'd expect a fair trial! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:52, 9 June 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.