Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert de Ravinel


 * 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. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude  talk  15:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hubert de Ravinel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Biography of a recently deceased writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. While there are claims here (mostly late-in-life honours) that would probably make him eligible for an article that was reliably sourced, as written the referencing here is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his listing on the website of the funeral home that handled his burial, and content self-published by organizations directly affiliated with the distinction claims -- and the French article is even worse, citing only the funeral home with no other footnotes whatsoever. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on real coverage about his work in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television,  and France.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Legion of the Knight of Honor from France is enough to confer notability, everything else is gravy. The article reads like a resume however and badly needs a rewrite. He's also got a few articles in GScholar that could be useful, as is the subject of a peer-reviewed journal.Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject was a chevalier in the Légion d'honneur, the lowest level and equivalent to an MBE, which has always been held to be at least two levels below anything satisfying WP:ANYBIO. There may possibly be other reasons for notability, but that is not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any coverage in real media, precisely because the extent to which any award is notable enough to make its winners "inherently" notable because they won it is determined by the extent to which the award does or doesn't get media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I agree with Phil Bridger that the fact of receiving the Légion d'honneur is not enough on its own. The National Order of Quebec may be stronger, I'm not sure, but I still don't think it's something that would automatically convey notability without WP:GNG-level sourcing. And I can't find any evidence of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability, so WP:GNG seems like the only possibility. But there is some nontrivial coverage of him that may be reliable and independent enough to pass WP:GNG: from the government of Quebec in the citation for his Order of Quebec, from Les petits frères, an organization he seems to have been associated with, in a story giving his biography and noting his award of the Légion d'honneur , and in a published tribute letter to him after his death (two sites and two languages but really only one letter) . —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for an award claim has to be media reportage about the presentation of the award, not the self-published website of the award's giver, to turn any award into an article-clinching notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're using the award for WP:PROF notability or the like, then the fact of the award is enough. And if we're going by GNG-based notability, then it is the sourcing, not the award, that makes him notable, and the fact that the sourcing has detailed coverage of the subject and is published by an impeccably reliable source, the government of Quebec, makes it irrelevant that at the same time they published the source they also gave him an award. Do you somehow think that the same publication from the same source would be made much stronger if only they had not also given him an award when they published it? That's absurd. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Content published by the government of Quebec would never be notability-building coverage in any context, because the government of Quebec is not media. The extent to which any award is ever notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which that award generates third-party media coverage in sources independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about its own activities. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought your position was already absurd, but you have outdone yourself by insisting that governments are incapable of generating independent reliable publications. Ridiculous and made up out of thin air, rather than anything actually written into our guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. While neither award on its own is sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO, I think the two together probably make it over the threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep As per his work and publications, i think he passes WP:BASIC. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Week keep I believe the award plus the sum of other achievements just gets the subject across the line to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 12 March 2022 (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.