Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry d'Agier


 * 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   delete. There is a pretty strong consensus now after the second relisting of this AFD on the WP:POLITICIAN/WP:N argument JForget  22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Henry d'Agier
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Non-notable person who, it appears, was an obscure local mayor in the 19th century. The only listed reference includes him in two sentences on page 30, and is certainly not about him. There are only 21 G-hits for d'Agier, each and every one of them Wiki mirrors of this article, and zero hits for "Henri d'Agier," which one would think would be more likely. There are no articles under either name on the French Wikipedia. Article is orphaned as well, and links only to the small commune of which he was a mayor. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Prod declined under the uninformative "Possibly a notable figure in his area."  Ravenswing  19:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with all of the above. If he was "a notable figure in his area" there should be sources to support that, and one would have to be quite notable in a small local area to pass WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. I think the smaller the area, the harder it should be to pass. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. How exactly does the article fail WP:V? A reference need not be primarily about a topic to be a valid one. – Eastmain (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Quite basic; "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It has long been held that multiple reliable sources are necessary even in cases where the sources are, as WP:BIO holds, about the subject.   Ravenswing  22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The town has a current population of 1902. according to WP:POLITICIAN, "Mayors" without distinction in size of the town are considered to meet the criterion--I think his position was more or less similar to that. There may well be more: I do not see how anyone could consider absence of Ghits relevant for 19th century figures; even gbooks is extremely weak in  French sources--and for good measure they have just been ordered by a French court to remove the few French sources they do have. This needs to be checked for possible additional notability in the appropriate print sources. But the position is verified by a print source. WP:V does not require multiple sources, just a RS, and a print local history is a RS. Ravenswing, you are confusing it with WP:N GNG--which at the moment he does not meet, he meets one of the alternative criteria.
 * The consensus has long been that WP:V requires more than one source, and furthermore sources about the subject, not passing mentions on a single page in another work. That being said, it remains unambiguous: a lack of sources about the subject doesn't mean that we keep the article anyway in the hopes that somehow, someday, something will turn up.  It means that the article cannot stand.    Ravenswing  21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sourced the article, cited written sources rather than a dubious online source. The article topic is a gentleman and local dignitary who performed notable acts. I cannot help the absence of information on a nineteenth century person but cannot accept that because you do not consider him notable he isn't. This person existed as the source, an historical account of the person (which includes other local dignitaries of the area). One could find additional sources at the departmental archives in Caen] but living in the UK I'm able to do so (documents are probably only available for consultation). The article fits the criteria set out in [[Wikipedia:V, no source is considered unreliable as it is not self-published or paid for and the authors have been published elsewhere. N is followed. Put rather than a speedy deletion as other should be found on the subject. POLITICIAN is also respected.


 * What makes the person's action notable? I'd thought a territorial dispute to be substantial. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are answering a number of questions I never posed, and not addressing the problems I have. First off, WP:BIO requires more than one source.  Secondly, WP:V places the burden of producing such sources on the editor who wishes to retain an article, and doesn't magically exempt articles just because such sources might not be easy to find.  Thirdly, the GNG is not followed; it explicitly requires "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  While I only have high school French, reading over the one source you supply has a few sentences about d'Agier's existence and the photostat of a document he signed; that's not substantial coverage.  Fourthly, he fails WP:POLITICIAN; I'm not sure how I had the notion that he was the mayor of the commune, but the article doesn't actually claim that - all it says is that he was a local landowner, and what criterion does that meet?  Finally, what makes this guy notable? That the guy got in a land dispute?  Those are a dime a hundred in the 19th century.  Anything?    Ravenswing  19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd read the article, tha land dispute is not one of his. The land dispute existed between three communes; Houlgate, Dives-sur-Mer and Gonneville-sur-Mer. Had this been a simple exchange of territory between local authorities or private owners I wouldn't say it's worth its own article but this dispute was between three communes/local councils, one of which newly formed and related to vast space, including an estuary and a (then) royal charted harbour. When I first joined WP it was understanding that article do not have to be long and if a topic is sufficiently described in the article, a few lines or a paragraph are sufficient for the article to be valid. I realise I omitted Algier's mayoral post and event left a grotesque spelling mistake which I've both added. GNG is followed as the depth of coverage is substantial and complete and a source, itself referencing communal archives is quoted, would you prefer it if I added my source's sources, it sure would add about ten of them, none of them on-line but published and legal... I won't type ten pages worth on a notable man if a paragraph is sufficient. Perhaps I ought to go to Houlgate's archives myself and dig something up but that could be considered original research. I am sure Caen's departmental archives will have records of Algier's tenure. WP:BIO is respected as he is a notary, being mayor he was sworn in by the prefect of Calvados and receiving the honour of working for the people, it also asks for one or more sources which I have and can produce, if you want more, I'll get you more. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Fails to satisfy Notability (people), and in particular WP:POLITICIAN. There is certainly no inherent notability for mayors of small towns. Edison (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails to satisfy WP:N, even if outdated. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google Books search turns up a small set of additional French-language references, which appear to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, the same three that have been noted, all about Houlgate. To quote from WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content."  The second reference is a passing mention.  The third is a name on a list.  The first appears to be a passing mention.  Do you have any sources that discuss the subject in detail, as GNG requires?    Ravenswing  20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I am leaning towards a "no consensus" closure here, as Captain Scarlet's last argument has not been replied to. But I really think it would be beneficial to have a little bit more time to sort out the notability of the sources. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't responded because AfD's a place for concise discussion, not for slanging matches, and I wouldn't be saying I hadn't already: that village mayors are a dime a thousand, that small-town land disputes are not remotely close to notable, that reliable sources discussing the subject in detail haven't been produced, and the Captain's premise that sources might exist in governmental archives bespeaks, of course, original research and cannot be contemplated. If you're interested in more voices, I just gave a halloo over on the Politics WikiProject to see what they think.    Ravenswing  04:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment there seems to very few articles on small-town mayors (even modern ones) even though I would think that they ususally qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, and there are obvious difficulties with providing as many detailed sources on this one, since it is from some time ago. Handschuh-talk to me 05:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the nominator's deletion rationale is correct. RMHED (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Being a small-town mayor is not such an obvious claim to notability as to guarantee a person a Wikipedia article. If more sources about the subject are found later, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it appears to me that a person of equivalent notability today would almost certainly be deleted without controversy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I mostly agree with the nominator and Andrew Lenahan. No new sources have been presented during this AfD, and the subject doesn't qualify for a separate article by either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, even though judging him just by the latter may be a little unfair given that a lot less press existed back then. He may have a certain claim to be a "part of the enduring historical record", but there's just not enough coverage of him to justify a separate article. Pcap ping  13:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I am puzzled as to why this has been relisted a second time. Most of the "keep" arguments are completely spurious, or completely unrelated to Wikipedia policy, or both. For example "according to WP:POLITICIAN, "Mayors" without distinction in size of the town are considered to meet the criterion" is simply not true, as can be verified by reading WP:POLITICIAN. Then we have "being mayor he was sworn in by the prefect of Calvados and receiving the honour of working for the people", which does not relate in the least to Wikipedia's notability criteria. More than once we have words to the effect "I expect more sources exist, but I am not in a position to find them". Unfortunately the onus is on those who want a "keep" to establish that adequate sources exist: guessing that they probably do is not sufficient. Also even if, as suggested, further information exists in Caen's departmental archives, this is not independent coverage: of course all local governments have records of people who have worked for them, notable or not. At present only one source is cited, and while I do not have access to this source, Ravenswing has, and tells us the source "has a few sentences about d'Agier's existence and the photostat of a document he signed". In short, there is no evidence at all that d'Agier comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2010 (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.