Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Huet


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edmond Huet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

not notable; no sources for verification identified Scoop100 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * delete – he sounds as if he could be notable, but any sources are probably dusty French books and archives which would take a heroic effort to unearth. There's a French version of the page, about the only other thing Google turns up, with more info but no references. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. Scoop100 (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a reference. Edmond Huet is notable not only as a leading proponent of the Paris Metro, but also as president of the fr:Société d'encouragement pour l'industrie nationale - Eastmain (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have made the unheroic effort of spending a few minutes with Google Books and unearthed these dust-free books which have significant coverage of the subject: . Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Phil has found sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * neutral - I'm still not sure he's notable - my French is too poor - but my original reasoning no longer holds. JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As the creator of the article I must say I feel the reasons for deletion are weak and that the article, though a stub, may be useful to researchers about the Paris Metro. Just because there are few sources does not contstitue a reason for deletion - look at the man's role. He played a reasonably important role and I just cannot see why we can't leave it here - are we short of zero's and one's or something? Come on John, give it a break! --Mapmark (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I believe the notability criteria is met, however there are language and chronology issues involved. It's hard to find third party sources for pre-20th century individuals, and the problem is compounded when the individual is from a non-English speaking country. There are a few solid references now included in the article and hopefully someone interested in the subject who has some keen translation skills can add to the article and help flesh it out. In its current state it's a perfectly viable stub just waiting for some attention --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 21:18, 30 November 2009 (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.