Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsieur


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Monsieur

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a French word. Belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers T 13:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apart from being the French equivalent of "sir", Monsieur is also a historical title that referred to the second son or the eldest brother of the king of France. Britannica has an article on it, which is more than enough for me. Also, see Category:Honorifics and Category:Noble titles. — Rankiri (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another three references: 2b,, — Rankiri (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that the word exists, or that it is used as described. But an article about a word must have extensive sources that are primarily about the word itself -- the "significant coverage" clause of WP:V.  See, for example, fuck.  That word has had entire books written about it; not so "Monsieur".  Powers T 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but an article about a historical title is an article about a subject, not a word. So WP:NOTDIC doesn't really apply and the above references discuss the subject in enough detail to satisfy WP:GNG. Again, your dissatisfaction with the current state of the article is quite understandable (hopefully, WP:ARS will do something with about it until this discussion is over), but I'm convinced that the page can be improved through regular editing and therefore shouldn't be deleted. — Rankiri (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the rescue template. This is not votestacking but a genuine desire to improve an underdeveloped article that may be worth saving. — Rankiri (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you can find some significant sources that are about the title, fine; otherwise, it looks like Fils de France has most of the relevant information already. Powers T 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I already mentioned some reliable sources with sufficiently significant coverage. Here's two more results from Google Scholar and Google Books: . I also started making some changes to the overall structure of the article. Please take a critical look and tell me what you think. — Rankiri (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the only one of those links (including the four above) that really comes close in my opinion is the PDF from ox.ac.uk. The others are either dictionary entries, references to the person holding the title at the time of the narrative, or brief descriptions of the word's meaning.  I don't see anything much substantial here beyond what could be found for virtually any word.  A separate article on this singular title still seems like overkill.  Powers T 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just have to disagree with you on this one. For one thing, I believe that the article in Encyclopedia Britannica also offers significant coverage by a reliable secondary source. — Rankiri (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that one due to its separation from the other links. I agree it's at least instructive, but I'm not clear on how one paragraph is significant coverage.  If that's all there is to say on the subject, the section at Fils de France seems sufficient.  Powers T 14:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I looked for references, I saw numerous descriptive statements like this:
 * During lits de justice, Monsieur, the king's brother, sat on the king's right and nearer to him than anyone else.
 * The King gave orders also that Monsieur, whenever He attended the Parliament, should have, in addition to His established Guard, a Guard of honour composed one hundred of the Swiss Guards and one hundred of the French.
 * Gaston had patiently represented the regent's interest in parliamentary sessions, and had attempted, as a mediator (his word), to work out the compromises which might restore public order...
 * I'm just not sufficiently familiar with the subject to say if any of such statements are characteristic of all Monsieurs. To my regret, I also don't speak French and the search results are filled with French-language literature. — Rankiri (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Q whether may be best to merge with one of the titles entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.37.130 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful article that does more than just give a definition; it gives comparisons, etymology, significance, etc. Abyssal (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said it was just a definition. All that other stuff belongs in a dictionary, too.  Powers T 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Rankiri makes a good argument. It is an article about a royal title, not just a definition.   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said it was just a definition. Powers T 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If it's good enough for a print encyclopedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a concept as well as a word & does not correspond to any actual English concept, so it's needed as an article.  I can think of very few common nouns in wide use that could not be Wikipedia articles if the work is done.  There is no sharp dividing line between an encyclopedia and a dictionary.    DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 22 August 2009 (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.