Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernand Goux


 * 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   no consensus. StarM 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fernand Goux

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

All but identical copy of an article that was previous deleted, which I came here to speedy, but there seem to be an insistence that it is somehow different, so it's back to AfD. The individual in this article does not meet WP:N: there is not sufficient non-trivial coverage in third-party, reliable sources to have an article about this individual. While there are many trivial references scattered across blogs and unreliable sources, there is nothing that would allow for a full, neutral article to be written. The three available sources are the best of the lot, so let's briefly examine them:


 * 1) A brief, one-two page biography of the individual on an amateur hobbyist's website. I have no real issues with this source, but it is hardly enough to maintain an entire article.
 * 2) A trivial mention that Goux indeed exists
 * 3) An article that uses source #1 as its primary source and thus repeats the information in a slightly different fashion

This material, along with a selection of trivial references scattered across a Google search are not enough to sustain an article. Cheers, CP 03:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Sufficient notability for a mention as one of longest living survivors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aargh delete, OK, he said grudgingly. I can't find anymore than you did, though I tried. If I had a Minitel finding French sources wouldn't be so difficult. Yes, we only have one source, by a goodwilling amateur whose word I don't have to doubt--but one really isn't enough. Good work by nom. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) — recreation of deleted material but under a different name. Yeah, right. MuZemike  ( talk ) 07:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep' . The source that mentions Goux exists should help the reliability of the primary source along. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep following the evidence provided by User:Ryoung122. -- Mgm|(talk)


 * Delete -sourced but no significant coverage, thus limited notability. It could possibly be merged into an article about WW1 veterans if there is such a thing.--Boffob (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the last World War I vets, there's a lot less notable people on the wikiCzolgolz (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable (and deserving of some respect) as one of last remaining veterans. Notable as raising issue of official recognition of poilus. Bazj (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - sources fail to establish notability. Worthy of a mention in List of veterans of World War I who died in 2008, but there's nothing substantial to support a full article. - fchd (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can definitely agree to keeping this as a redirect as well; I think that's what happened last time eventually. Cheers, CP 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The last one or two surviviving veterans of a war oare of sufficient public interest for notability, if there's enough material to write an article,as i think there is here. DGG (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I believe three sources in enough to confer notability, especially in the case of one of the last WWI vets. The French government has not recognised Goux, so little is expectedly available. Oh, and the first source is actually a journal article republished on some guy's website. It can be removed if that is the concensus. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For those who are wondering, I was canvassed, although Goux is on my watchlist and I would have noticed this AFD anyway. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. First, I'd like to correct some errors in the rationale for deletion:

1. Frederic Mathieu is not an "amateur hobbyist" but has been cited in the international press as an expert on the subject. For example, he arranged the meeting between Henry Allingham and Robert Meier in 2006. Here's another example:

http://quartierlibre.ca/Les-ders-des-ders

2. The original deletion seemed to be an "add-on" after the Pierre Picault article was nominated for deletion. Yet the sources for the Goux case were more reliable and numerous than the other one, so it was unfair having both articles tied together in one AFD.

3. The rationale is that Mr. Goux was not an official "poilu," however even the count of veterans cited by CNN included him:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/11/war.vets.photos/?iref=mpstoryview

This man is a presidential photographer, I disagree with the assertion that all of this is just blog-talk. At the very least, the article should be given some leeway because the story is still being written...remember the French gov't reversed their stance on the Rene Riffaud case. The policy of who counts as a veteran seemed to be designed to save government pension funds, a different motivation than commemoration. In the USA, if someone served one hour on a train, that counts as "veteran" status. Wikipedia's policy should reflect international consensus, not nationalistic rules which are often tailored for other ends.

Finally, there seems to be too much information to simply fit it all in a small info-box summary. If this article cannot stand alone, I would suggest a "merge" to the List of Veterans who died in 2008 article, which has just 14 listees...it would make sense to have a one-paragraph mini-bio on the last 25 or so (and with 9 alive and 14 died in 2008, that's just 23 total). Ryoung 122 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable enough for me, you should just reported this article's recreation to ANI mate. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep User MuZemike's vote should be discounted. This is because they are under the impression that this article is a recreation of deleted material under a different name. This is simply not true. This arises from the original double deletion being completely unfair. And it has meant that this article can never receive a fair nomination. Perhaps people can consider this in future, before tagging all and sundry for removal. 212.183.136.192 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * 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.