Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules Jammal


 * 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. Most are of the opinion that the story of this possibly fictitious war hero is notable enough to merit coverage, but needs further cleanup to separate facts from myth.  Sandstein  20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Jules Jammal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article makes dubious claims about a figure named Jules Jamal. According to the article he sunk a french battleship named Jeanne D’Arc in a suicide attack during the Suez crisis, and has been honored in various ways. I am unable to find secondary sources backing up these claims. As far as I can tell no large ship was sunk during the time mentioned, and no french ship named Jeanne D’Arc was lost the time. The loss of a ship in such a spectacular way should be mentioned in some of the books I own on the subject. I am also unable to verify any of the honors he is supposed to have received. P.S. (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite substantially. Western sources credibly indicate that the individual was the central figure in a spurious propaganda campaign during the Suez conflict, and remains the center of an "urban legend" (for lack of a better term) in some areas of the Middle East. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo and my discussion with the nominator at the article talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; couldn't find any reliable sources to indicate that the subject is notable other than a suicide attack (where, in the article, the subject is mentioned); see WP:EFFECT. Insufficient in-depth coverage of subject to indicate subject is notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG; utterly fails WP:SOLDIER. If not delete Merge reliably sourced content into Suez Crisis, and provide a Redirect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite, per discussion on article talk page. If reliable sources support assertions about this as fact, consider mention in the Suez crisis article, citing those sources, IAW WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I have added in detail from the source listed higher on this page and rewritten to separate out the myth from reality but then I spent significant time looking for sources and didn't find any. I tried all manner of searches at Google Books and News Archive, tried the vast newspaperarchive.com, as well as JSTOR. So what we have is a bunch of sources (some of which are just passing mention) that do not appear to be reliable, not just because of the type of source they are—their lack of fact checking and non-reputation for accuracy—but because they are reporting this as fact, when it is rather clear on its face this cannot be true. If we could find more than the one reliable source (note that I sourced the author of the book as a historian and Washington newspaper correspondent) with significant treatment, then we'd have material for an article. But I am convinced, following my search, that we aren't going to find much more. So we are left with only one reliable source containing one short paragraph on which to base an article. I think some of those above opting for keep may have done so because Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' finding of that one source (well done) reasonably implied to them that more would be in the offing. Now that that doesn't seem to be the case, I think some re-examination might be in order. Of course, if someone else can find more sources I will gladly re-examine my own opinion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite to focus on status as inflated propaganda myth Buckshot06 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable, although apparently false meme, and having received considerable prominence in notable sources, we ought to cover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * 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.