Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messieurs


 * 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 redirect. I will protect temporarily to avoid edit warring in the near future. Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Messieurs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is essentially little more than an expanded dictionary definition with little genuinely encyclopedic content — but even more importantly, it's merely a content fork of monsieur. There's no discernible reason why Wikipedia could possibly need separate articles about singular and plural forms of the same word when one article that covers both aspects of the word would suffice — especially given that most of the content in this article hinges on the singular form rather than the plural anyway. This should probably be redirected to monsieur rather than being deleted; however, I'm bringing it to AFD because I've already done that previously and then the creator came and reverted that, and aiming for consensus trumps edit warring any day. And we'll never mind that parts of this article as currently written are verging on complete and utter nonsense, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. It could probably technically just be Speedy Deleted under criteria A.10, but as you said, it would actually more useful as a redirect than just being deleted.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I, for one, wouldn't see the need to exercise my deletion tool here. The article was a redirect for four years, and can be made a redirect again with nothing more than the ordinary editing tool that everyone has, even people without an account.  And yes: I agree with Bearcat about the redirect for what it's worth.  There appears to be zero verifiable content here, and very little context to determine what group of people it is even talking about in the first place.  Given the existence of The Messieurs (now deleted), the existence of another single-purpose account that wrote that, and the usual "these are the towns/cities my playmates come from" list at the end of the article, this has all of the hallmarks of being stuff that a group of people made up in school one day and are mucking around by scribbling it on Wikipedia.  This is bad content that needs to be excised, and the edit tool can do it. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with you in principle — however, because the editor in question reverted my earlier attempts to do exactly that, I brought it here so that there would be (a) an increased number of eyeballs on the situation, and (b) an actual consensus to back those eyeballs up, before it turned into a full-fledged edit war. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect - I can't believe that the plural of a word will be notable independently of its root. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed that this page is being considered for deletion. It seems there is some doubt about the content of the article. Though I can deplore a lack of referencing and detail in some areas, I do concur with the preceding comment about this "Messieurs" group. I read about them in Deleuze's "Difference and Repetition". If I remember correctly, he spoke of them in an example of repetition, which he defines as difference without concept. His argument seemed to be that this group were the complex repetition of the poetic group 'La Pléiade' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Pléiade) named after the constellation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades). I regret not being able to provide more details, which is why I haven't inputted it into the article. My policy is to not comment if I cannot reference, though I think it would be a shame to lose what has been written thus far and could be contributed to in the future. I also think the section pertaining to slang is interesting, and I realize that colloquialisms are always particularly difficult to reference.

This should clarify Deleuze's reference to a certain extent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_and_Repetition#3._Empty_time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter1919 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Baxter Baxter1919 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter1919 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Monsieur, as was the case from 2009 until last week. The current content appears to be a direct translation of an essay written in French plus a dictionary definition of the French word. User:Louisdeibler apparently created a similar essay at fr:Monsieur (afficher l'historique), then copied it to En, expanded it and translated it (comparison of page versions). Cnilep (talk) 04:35, 21 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.