Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaël Duval


 * 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 to delete. BD2412 T 00:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Gaël Duval

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It has been tagged as autobiography and primary sources, since October 2019. On the Talk said "It looks like a WP:BLP1E case of WP:LOWPROFILE and appears as a WP:RESUME that simply outlines his professional history without any significant coverage" It was edited a lot by, aka , confirmed promotional sockpuppets. (Sockpuppet Investigations) Most sources are either self-published, primary (indidea.org, and e.foundation), about a few projects he was involved with, interviews of other people, short mentions (e.g. of his firing from Mandriva), or not reliable (i.e. TGDaily). I note that sock and meat puppetry was a concern at where both Caliwing and Indidea participated, and may be expected here. Yae4 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete We need to actually start enforcing our no autobiographies rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with John, and I'd add that the noteworthy information about Duval (re. his contributions to the software industry) is already included in the Mandriva Linux article. Perhaps a redirect might be appropriate, but I'm leaning towards delete altogether. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage is sufficient to be considered significant per the GNG. Note articles such as this one in Le Monde, a French newspaper of record which is about him exclusively. He is particularly notable within France and the French press . Yes, most English language media talk about him in reference to his software contributions, but this isn't an Anglocentric encyclopedia. The French coverage plus all the other coverage combined, considering his significant impact in the industry, should be enough for a decent notability claim. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You've confused or combined two Gael Duvals: Two sources for the wrong one, associated with JeChange and Touch Conference, and one source for the one associated with Mandrake and eelo aka e. The LeMonde source is really mostly another rehash of Mandrake and /e OS, and that author's list of articles has all appearances of being a Tech blog, similar to what we don't give much credit from Forbes or the Guardian. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right about there being two people! Funny. You couldn't possibly argue Le Monde is not a reliable source, however. So the argument still stands. I didn't delve into the author's details, but the editorial integrity of the publication cannot be questioned in the manner you're implying. Not considering this as valid sigcov would be a double standard. PK650 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant coverage in the following reliable sources: —  Newslinger  talk   09:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Gaël Duval, l’adepte de Linux qui veut libérer les smartphones" from Le Monde
 * "20 ans après Mandrake Linux, Gaël Duval présente son nouveau projet : Eelo, le smartphone libre" from Numerama


 * This 2004 article start was written by someone who knew all about Duval and his homepages, and used ZERO sources. LeMonde and Numerama sources are really all about /e and Mandrake, not about Duval. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles from Le Monde and Numerama also cover Duval's personal life, personal experiences, and personal motivations for developing these projects. The subject of these articles is Duval, and the coverage spans both of his projects (Mandriva Linux and /e/) as well as personal information about Duval that would be out the product articles' respective scopes. Products are not "events", and in any case, Duval developed two notable products, not one. Duval is also not a low-profile individual, as he has given interviews to notable publications including The Register and BGR (Boy Genius Report), in addition to all of the news coverage cited in the Mandriva Linux and /e/ (operating system) articles that include Duval's name. —  Newslinger   talk   14:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, those sources present more info' about the projects than about Duval. It's embarrassing for Wikipedia that the article has been a resume for nearly 16 years.  -- Yae4 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles present sufficient information about Duval himself to merit an article for him. For example, Le Monde details Duval's early life and Numerama covers why Duval transitioned from working on Mandriva Linux to /e/. Duval has two notable projects, and we don't exclude people from having biographies because their creations are notable. AfD discussions focus on the existence of reliable sources, rather than the present or past content in the article. —  Newslinger  talk   01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: Numerama. In a different context, I believe you'd agree the site is a click bait, team-blog site, masquerading as a news site (i.e. non-reliable). (though it does list an editor in chief). There was non-consensus on reliability in previous discussion. Did you see the Vroom section at Numerama (similar to cars.com)?
 * Re: "two notable projects". The French wikipedia article on Mandriva gives equal credit to Frédéric Bastok et Jacques Le Marois as well, for Mandrake business. This is confirmed by the Le Monde article. So, it does support some change to the english Mandriva articles (which should probably be merged), but that's only one and a fraction projects. In fairness, there's also Ulteo and Ulteo Open Virtual Desktop - two more Duval-involved articles for one more project advertised on Wikipedia, but they also have marginal sourcing, should be merged, and at least one was also self-edited.
 * Re Mandriva Linux sources. Those sources are almost entirely after 2006 after Duval was fired.
 * As said earlier, I believe the Le Monde article being discussed here is of blog quality, with less editorial oversight than other articles. The following, to me, is an indicator. The Le Monde article author's (Bastien Lion) contributions are listed under the following
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/signataires/bastien-lion/
 * Note the URL difference in the following list of articles:
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/signataires/pixels/
 * Taking an example from that list, regarding Zuckerberg, Note that it is authored, "Par Pixels". This indicates to me it is considered more a publication of Le Monde. Other "Pixels" articles are attributed to individual authors, and it looks like this is consistent with less editorial oversight. Last, while it gives some personal detail, it's mostly about the projects, not the person, IMO. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable not just as the initiator of a major Linux distro. The sources seem good enough to pass GNG. --Slashme (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (Delete, in case the AfD wasn't a clear vote). It's difficult to find non-primary sources for any details about Duval himself. Only projects are detailed in secondary sources, and he's the spokesman for the project(s). -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's non-standard for article nominators to submit a separate bolded delete !vote, since the nomination is assumed to be in favor of deletion unless you specify otherwise. —  Newslinger  talk   01:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The initial comment was mostly repeating what said before. I saw it as looking for more opinions, and I hadn't yet fully made up my mind, until I saw how weak the "Keep" arguments are, so I wanted to make my position clear. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate delete !votes run the risk of being misinterpreted as duplicate !votes. As mentioned in WP:AFDFORMAT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." —  Newslinger  talk   01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe if this were high enough profile to get many votes it would "run a risk." Anyway, sorry for missing the rule; it's been unbolded and notated. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2020 (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.