Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Prieur


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Dominique Prieur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E. Known only for being involved in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and all content is about this. Should be covered there, if at all.  Sandstein  20:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - lots of source spread across multiple countries, decades and languages. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But this does not address the problem that the sources are all about one event, the Rainbow Warrior sinking, which should lead us to cover this person in the context of that article.  Sandstein   08:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E has three required conditions, only the first is met. Publishing a book about the event is not maintaining a low profile. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, the example given at "Subjects notable for only one event" is John Hinckley, who is notable only for attempting to assassinate Reagan however has his own page as his role and the event are both significant. Prieur similarly fits this description - the event was significant, and her role in it was substantial. MurielMary (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with . She was also in the news again about 10 years after the event as it was remembered. She is known best for the 1 event, but if she's published a book and has sources over time, then the article meets WP:GNG and one event does not apply. I'm adding the references I'm finding. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment My research turned up the fact that Prieur is also considered the first female French secret agent. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep enough to meet notability NealeFamily (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep an household name in NZ and of interest in her own right, not only as attached to the Rainbow Warrior sinking. MurielMary (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still questionable for a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Being the first woman French secret agent makes her sufficiently notable even without the most unfortunate Rainbow Warrior incident (as they would say in Japan). Passes all three points of exemption in WP:BLP1E. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Query There are now 5 opinions to keep and 2 to delete (including the nomination). How and why is this not considered consensus to keep? MurielMary (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a WP:MAJORITY vote editorEهեইдအ😎 02:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep see point 3 to WP:BLP1E: she is at least as well known in NZ as Hinckley is in the USA - in fact her notoriety in NZ is on a level with that of Mark David Chapman. The event for which she is notorious was described by the French government themselves as a terrorist act, before the truth came out about their involvement - and it took place in a country where any sort of terrorism is extremely rare - Mafart and Prieur are the only persons convicted of anything I'd call a terrorist act, in NZ, that I can recall. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article seems fairly well sourced now which suggests to me that the subject has received significant coverage in a range of reliable sources. The coverage also seems to be spread over quite a period of time and is international (French, British, NZ and Australian) and includes both news sources and books etc. As such I'd say it meets WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. I am a bit dubious about the "first woman French secret agent" claim though as I am sure there have been countless other French women that have been involved in any number of intelligence operations over the last few hundred years (either officially or unofficially). I imagine then that it must be a question of definitions. Anotherclown (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, ... I think it's a matter of wording. I am sure there have been many French female spies before her, but she must have been the first woman in her type of position. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as a mixture for having a fair amount of coverage thanks to the event but also the fact that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2016 (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.