Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Downfall of France’s Delegated Minister of Budget: Jérôme Cahuzac


 * 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 delete. MER-C 03:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The Downfall of France’s Delegated Minister of Budget: Jérôme Cahuzac

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an essay, written as the editor's personal assessment of the subject. It appears to be rather one-sided, and so WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are not met. As this is a brand new article there isn't a good version to revert to, and its content would have to be reworked and checked against sources to be useful anywhere else. I speedy deleted this page as an attack article, but decided shortly after that it might not meet the relevant criteria for speedy deletion. Nick-D (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the BLP and NPOV violations are secondary to the fact that it's just fundamentally not an encyclopedia article (i.e. "This is an essay"). It is analysis, which makes it original research and uses Wikipedia as a soapbox.  There are a lot of facts included, but it would take much work to rewrite it as a mere exposition of sourced facts, which is what a Wikipedia article needs to be.  I would delete.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This matter is properly discussed at Jérôme Cahuzac, an article that can be expanded. We do not publish essays and opinion pieces masquerading as encyclopedia articles. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Reading through the creator's user page, the idea was apparently to create an English equivalent of fr:Affaire Cahuzac. However, the result is clearly not encyclopedic, especially in the sections after the background. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I don't have the depth of background knowledge on French politics to know whether l'Affaire Cahuzac really meets the rarefied standard necessary to qualify for a standalone article as a separate topic from his existing WP:BLP. But what I do know for sure is (a) even if it does meet the notability standard for events, this as written is not the article that gets it there, and (b) his BLP on en is quite short and can accomodate the content without needing a separate spinoff (whereas his BPV en français is considerably longer). We do not write Wikipedia articles in the first person, for just one example of the many problems here. A neutral presentation in Jérôme Cahuzac would be fine; this, as written, is not. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, WP:NOTESSAY. Some of this can surely be incorporated into the main article, if it is done in a neutral manner. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an essay repo per WP:NOTESSAY. Tushi  Talk To Me  18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOTESSAY - but before doing it, move any non-OR material into Jérôme Cahuzac. These seems to be quite a lot of content that could be incorporated but it is not worded neutrally at the moment so will need to be rewritten. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY, Bearcat and Tiptoe.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon, I am currently working on a newer and meliorated version of the article, making appropriate modifications based on the comments above. Best Regards, your fellow WikipedianAMJM8 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an actual reason why we would need a standalone article about it, rather than simply addressing it in the article that already exists about Cahuzac? Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 November 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.