Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Loret


 * 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. While "its useful" and "its important" are generally poor arguments to keep an article, others have detailed that the article has been covered in sources. Likewise, we don't delete articles because they have a title similar to a more substantial article, we create a disambiguation page. That, or a hatnote, is proably the way to go here. (non-admin closure) Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 02:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jean Loret

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced article that has usurped an existing sourced article. noq (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I've gone to the trouble of adding a few references, as well as a dab to the existing article on Jean-Marie Loret who was in the news last week . The recent creation of this article doesn't seem to be so much of a "usurpation" as a sorting out of things as the French article about this poet has been around since 2007. -- Kendrick7talk 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - was an important precursor in the history of journalism, and there were several pre-existing links to Jean Loret which were intended for the writer rather than the claimed son of Hitler. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Moving a sourced existing article twice and replacing it with another unsourced article while complaining about no afd to put things back is usurping. WP:BRD requires that the original mover should discuss, not repeat the same mistake. This move should have been discussed and consensus reached - creating a sourced article under  a different title and then arguing for a DAB page would have made more sense. noq (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noq, you deleted the orginal stub without giving any notice or even prodding it first. That's problematic and a violation of Deletion policy ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.") and your deletion met none of the criteria set out in Criteria for speedy deletion ie your original mistake was your deleting the article unilaterally without any discussion. In any case, the Jean Loret article is now well sourced so deletion is not justifiable. Jean-Marie Loret is the common name of the subject of the other article (see Google) so the renaming was appropriate. Will you withdraw the AFD? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:BRD goes, it's rather hard to discuss a unilateral deletion of an article, since the talk pages of deleted articles are also deleted. I guess the WP:BURO thing to do would have been to have taken the matter to WP:DRV, which is asking a bit much. In any case, everything seems sorted now per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kendrick7talk 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep It would be ridiculous to delete this important article. Somebody must be crazy even to suggest it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.228.199 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep The main target of first encyclopaedia creators was to make an full info about every worth writing people. What may be more worthy than this writer? Even it is good to expand Wikipedia, because China encyclopaedia is getting bigger... ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. There is no reason to remove this article, it provides useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.173.245 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (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.