Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Vingtième de cavalerie


 * 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 no consensus. Not helpful to using this as precedent, but I don't see a 3rd relist helping after two generated only one additional comment. Star  Mississippi  01:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Le Vingtième de cavalerie

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

I am afraid most of Category:Lucky Luke albums don't meet WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG and should be redirected to a list or such. I am listing this one here, as a test case, and also, b/c I think this one SHOULD be notable (it's, errr, politically incorrect, just read the plot...). Unfortunately, my BEFORE for English and French names does not suggest anyone has discussed this album in reliable sources. There's a chance I missed something from French-language websites, my French is poor. Fr wiki article is of little help. In either case, let's discuss. Please note that if this ends up with 'redirect' or such I intend to be bold and redirect many of Lucky Luke albums to the same location (probably Lucky_Luke, which I suggest as a redirect target, in spirit of WP:PRESERVE). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and France. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or some merge (not just a redirect), and please don't use the result of this one as a blanket precedent as they have varying degrees of notability. this one, together with anumber of others, gets a short paragraph here, and a mention here (in an article which establishes notability for another Lucky Luke album, Chasseur de primes). This is behind a paywall, so I can't see what is said in it (passing mention or more?). This book references the comic album, and here it's used for the motto of another book. This 2020 book references an anti-tabac dialogue in the comic. And then there are the cases where I can't access the source to judge ho long or short the mention is, like here or here (In English, by a Dutch-language author). It was also turned into an episode of the animated series, translated in many languages, and has been constantly reprinted since its original appearance in 1965. Fram (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fram Could you add this to the article, either as a reception or just as further reading section's list of sources to consult? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS. I can't say I am impressed by the sources found. The first one, the only one you say has a confirmed paragraph-lenght content, is a plot summary of various albums, and the paragraph in question is 2-3 sentences per book. Oh, and per GNG, we need multiple examples of SIGCOV-meeting coverage, so no, Le Figaro's article does not estabilish a notability for the other album (although it's halfway here - one more source like that and that album will be borderline notable, as two sources would meet the GNG requirement for "multiple" sources). Anyway, the other sources cited seem to fail WP:SIGCOV (or are paywalled and we haven't confirmed whehter they do or don't). Unless we can find lenghtier coverage, a redirect (preserving history so that this can be easily restored if one day someone does find 2+ sources meeting SIGCOV) is the best solution here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the "political correctness" of the comic, it is not only rather irrelevant for this discussion, but the comic is a parody of a John Ford western and is a lot more PC and open-minded (and anti-militaristic) than most US western movies.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom, as the article makes no claim to notability. Nothing to merge, as the content is barely more than plot summary. No prejudice against recreation if/when sources are found, but I would prefer to see Lucky Luke improved before splits for individual volumes are made. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was classed as a stub, but it's not a stub; it should have been re-classed as Start (which I have updated). Looking at the sources from @Fram above, I'm inclined to keep rather than redirect (although the article does need some work).    Butler Blog   (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the basis of the sources identified above, I think it is quite clear that it meets the (admittedly low) standards of WP:NBOOK. Or is a challenge being mounted to this guidance? —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources did not convince me that this particular volume of the series was notable independent of the series as a whole. NBOOK doesn't differentiate between a novel and a serialized work collected in multiple volumes, so I'm not sure it's a valid measuring stick for this particular article. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Even in French sources, I don't find much. mentions it in passing, so does this . Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 21 September 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.