Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-François Lemarignier


 * 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) Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Jean-François Lemarignier

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod because “contest deletion per WP:SOFIXIT - easily passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF and the WP:GNG with several reliable obituaries and many reviews readily available”. Article simply states that subject was a historian and cites only none source. Hence my prod that notability was not established. What is not in the article doesn’t matter to me and what is in the article does matter. Nothing indicates notability. In fact, the person who contested the prod deleted notability and lack of references tag. BostonMensa (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC 1, 2, 3, and 5. A corresponding Fellow of the British Academy and the holder of a full French chair, Knight of the Legion of Honour and Officer of the Palmes Academiques. Obituaries in leading disciplinary publications. Etc. And yes, WP:SOFIXIT too. Atchom (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not surprising that the creator of the articles wants to keep it, but there is nothing in it to indicate notability.Being a corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, etc., is suggestive, but proves nothing. We need to know what work led to these honours. Is it really so difficult to add this information? I suppose he wrote some books, published articles etc., but no citations are included.  Athel cb (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is much more information in the French page about him: why not include some of it?  Athel cb (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How is any of what you write a guideline-based rationale for deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a medievalist so I don't want to write about his substantive work. But please refer to WP:NACADEMIC first. Atchom (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think some of it should be included then you know where the edit button is. The state of the article when it was nominated for deletion has no bearing on the notability of the subject, which is what matters here (the sentence in the nomination, "what is not in the article doesn’t matter to me and what is in the article does matter" flies in the face of our notability guidelines), and you have the same responsibility to improve the article as anyone else here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. In addition to the two in-depth sources about Lemarignier already used as references (passing WP:GNG), the honors listed by Atchom (passing WP:PROF and #C3), and the professorial chair he held (#C5), he has multiple published reviews of his books, as already stated in the unprod and now added to the article, passing WP:AUTHOR. Speedy because nominator appears to have actively refused to follow WP:BEFORE, escalating to an AfD instead of using the unprod information to seek notability beyond what was already in the article, and considering only GNG notability when the unprod pointed to other notability criteria not based on sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and multiple criteria of WP:PROF, as argued above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep (changed from Delete). With 13 edits by Atchom and David Eppstein since yesterday's discussion, and about 1000 bytes added, it seems that they took the criticisms more seriously than they wished to admit. Anyway, the article is much improved (though further improvement won't go amiss).  Athel cb (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find your personal remark about my motivation offensive. It is allowed, or even encouraged, to improve articles that are up for deletion. It is also part of the guidelines that notability is an attribute of a topic, not an attribute of the article in its nominated state. Improving articles is in no way an acknowledgement that a deletion nomination was appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no intention to make a personal remark or to offend, but anyway, I apologize. I wasn't all that keen on your earlier question "How is any of what you write a guideline-based rationale for deletion?" either. It wasn't a rationale for deletion but a suggestion of how to bring the article up to an acceptable standard -- particularly easy in this case as much of the missing information was readily available in the corresponding French article.  Athel cb (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes multiple notability criteria, per above. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2021 (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.