Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippe Dajoux


 * 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. North America1000 07:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Philippe Dajoux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sourcing except to IMDb and no real claim to notability otherwise. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. French version of this article is not any further developed. ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Well it wouldn't be, seeing as this page was created as a translation from the French. (I know - it was me.) Searching on google.fr returns numerous results, including IMDb, Allocine and a number of press articles. In addition, his films receive significant coverage and his work on the popular and long running French soap Plus belle la vie attest to notability. Give me time, I'll knock up some refs. Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which I have now done. Emeraude (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDb, as with all other wikis, is not a usable source. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDb can be useful for verification. The other added references appear to be useful for establishing notability. I'm retracting my Delete position and may advance to Keep once I've learned some French :) ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep in view of the French press coverage presented above, I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as regardless of any coverage, this is still questionable for any applicable notability including for WP:ENTERTAINER. Simply nothing else solidly convincing, SwisterTwister   talk  04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think significant, indepth press coverage that qualifies as reliable sources should be disregarded just because it contradicts your argument that the subject is not notable. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability to a Francophone audience does not confer notability to an Anglophone audience. Dkendr (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon. Are we into lingofascism now? Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Emeraude. That argument is nonsensical. Notability is notability, regardless of the language. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand behind what I said. Just because an article subject is relevant to speakers of a given language, it's not necessary to have a deletion-candidate article in every language under the sun, particularly in the era of Google Translate. Would you be willing to contribute stubs for this subject in Urdu, Klingon and Faroese? Dkendr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - We must fight lingofacism. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If lingofascism is a phenomenon, why doesn't it have an article? Dkendr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (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.