Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Picault

: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 both. Sandstein 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Pierre Picault]]=

:{{la|Pierre Picault}} ([{{fullurl:Pierre Picault|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Picault}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Entirely speculative article on an individual who may or may not be a World War I veteran. Sole available sources are a blog entry that cites Wikipedia and Robert Young's [http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/10929 World's Oldest People] group, which is not only not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but even itself admits that there is no media coverage of the individual. This person may indeed be one of France's last surviving World War I veterans but, until he gets coverage in third-party, independent, published reliable sources, this is original research. Cheers, CP 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Fernand Goux}} Nomination extended by Amalthea^Talk 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO at the moment, per nomination. Even if he is officially one of the last WWI survivors and gets news coverage he might still fail due to WP:ONEEVENT. --Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Since Fernand Goux asserts notability in the same way, I extend this nomination by this article. He was mentioned in [http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/06/19/460271-Le-dernier-Poilu-de-14-18-n-est-pas-mort.html], which is far less than significant coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Paul, if you want to talk about verifibility, fine, but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth", and anyway, it's obviously true and not 'entirely' speculative. Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh? All the veterans are notable for 1 event so why don't you nominate all of them? It was quite a big event though, you know? 78.145.35.67 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment For Goux, the burden of citations and verifiability ALWAYS lies on the individual who added the material, so please do not be uncivil to another editor as you were above. I noticed that you !voted Keep. On what criteria do you base that on? Cheers, CP 19:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment As I said, I base it on it being perfectly verifiable, but presumably the burden you mention is why so many people prefer to destruct rather than construct. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
None of the veterans are notable alone by having fought in WWI, according to the notability criteria. The "one event" I was referring to was them being among the last living WWI veterans, which I am convinced is by itself also not enough to establish notability - WP:ONEVENT. Keeping lists (Surviving veterans of World War I, Last surviving World War I veteran by country) is not covered by this of course.
That being said, I do expect that a great number of those "last survining veterans" will be otherwise notable due to "significant coverage in reliable sources" - see Frank Buckles and Erich Kästner. I do not see it at the moment with the initially nominated article, and I do not see it with Fernand Goux. All I can find are unreliable sources (blogs, ...) and/or trivial coverage.
In particular, Bart Versieck aka Extremly Sexy being "told by Laurent Toussaint" does not comply with WP:V I'm afraid, and I still highly doubt that the fact makes him notable in the first place.
I have no prejudice against recreating these articles once they pass the criteria of course, but at the moment I'm convinced that they don't.
--Amalthea^Talk 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Apart from Wikipedia entries, Robert Young's group, and the blog that has been cited in the article, I have not been able to find any source that mentions Picault. A blog is not a reliable source, especially considering it cites its reference to Picault to a Wikipedia article. Considering the flaw with Robert Young's record of this person, as noted by CP, and the fact that the relevant Wikipedia entries do not provide appropriate sources to back up their mention of him, I suspect that the article on Picault could be a hoax. I could be wrong, but the evidence does suggest this. Re-iterating what CP said, 78.145.35.67, you were acting in an uncivil manner towards Amalthea when you said "Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh?". That type of behaviour will not do. Plus, .67, you said the "it's obviously true". How is it obviously true? Also, I would like to address "but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth"." That mantra is true, and the fact that we can't verify that this person exists is the reason why I believe this article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Firstly, I know the mantra is the rules, that's why I repeated it, and I know that's why you want to delete the article. The point which you haven't understood is that if you say "I only care about the rules" and there is nothing in the rules about truth, then why would you discuss whether it is true or a 'hoax'? Because you're trying to have it both ways. And in doing so, you're implying that another editor is a liar (which is more uncivil than my sarcasm). Because Bart Versieck has said that he was told by Laurent Toussaint that this is a true case. And since Mr Toussaint is one of the leading experts I said it was obviously true. But you don't know any of this because you haven't taken a few minutes to look into it. You've just jumped to conclusions like every other Jonny come lately out of the woodwork and insulted other people's efforts and intelligence. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment Captain celery, a hoax is not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. Accusing an article of being a hoax can be seen as an uncivil act if there is no evidence to back up that assertion. In this case, the lack of any reliable information regarding the existence of Picault does give some ground, imo, to the idea that the article is a hoax. If I have offended anyone with my suggestion that this article might be a hoax, I would like to apologise for that. I do not wish to start an argument, but I feel I must address the following; I am not happy that I have been accused of having "jumped to conclusions". I have conducted an expected level of research into this case, imo. I am aware of what Laurent Toussaint told Bart Versieck, since I found out about them when I was looking at the talk page of Surviving veterans of World War I, and from the comment I have recently made on the talk page, you can see that I did look at that article before you mentioned these two people. Toussaint may be right about Picault, but until his information is backed up by accessible and reliable sources, the Wikipedia community can't simply take his word, as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. This is not because I believe he is a liar, but because his information needs to be verified, as the mantra you have put forth states.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I accept that you researched it, and that if you had known who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are, then you would have come to a different conclusion. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment I do not mean to sound rude, but it is the verifiability of Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck's opinion that counts, as opposed to knowing "who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are". JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and JEdgarFreeman. If some reliable source/s can be found the article can be easily recovered. For the moment both fail WP:RS and WP:V. Moondyne 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

class="messagebox collapsible collapsed"
Sideline text collapsed
Collapsing material not directly to articles nominated for deletion. Cheers, CP 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment Here's my problem with you folks. Last night someone evidently went on the main article and changed Fernand Goux's name to 'Barthezz' and it took 45 minutes before one of the regulars reverted it. Where were you then? But if I make a change, it's reverted within seconds. So much for being guardians of the rules. Delete Picault's article. Fine. But why delete Goux's when there's a perfectly reasonable source? Only because he's a newly discovered French veteran. What rule is that, the law of the bandwagon? It's so hypocritical. One of the other articles has the same level of citation. You won't delete that, either because it's been on so long, or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery Comment Some edits on Wikipedia are responded to more quickly than others. I believe this is not generally due to prejudice, but because it can take time for an editor to notice an edit that needs to be addressed. I happened to check the article in question soon after you had made the edit I proceeded to reverse. The fact that I reverted your change, 78.145.35.67, within "seconds", was a coincidence as a result. You may not believe me, but it is the truth. The source cited in Goux's article is reliable, imo, but I believe its coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. 78.145.35.67, you said "One of the other articles has the same level of citation". Please could you tell me which article that is? I ask because I would like to investigate it, to see if it deserves to be on Wikipedia. You also said "or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article." I do not see how my knowledge of the article on Goux has anything to do with my knowledge of another article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Comment Celery, I'm going to warn you again not to be uncivil. It's not tolerated here and, frankly, it's not helping your argument any. If there is another article with the same level of citation, then you should point it out. I will note that I have successfully nominated several poorly-cited veteran articles and also plan to nominate Battista Serioli for a second time in due course. Cheers, CP 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Comment I think it's obvious to anyone that my last comment wasn't the slightest bit uncivil. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery Comment I found it uncivil that you suggested that I "know nothing about this article". I advise you to follow what CP and I have said about being civil. Being uncivil in Wikipedia will not help your cause, and if you are uncivil in the future, you will find yourself in trouble. I hope that you will be civil at all times from now on, and I hope that you will be a valuable Wikipedian into the future. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment You implied that we were either incompetent or biased against you ("So much for being guardians of the rules") depending on how one takes that statement, called us hypocrites (actions being "so hypocritical") and told us that we "know nothing about this article". That's a far cry from commenting on the contributions, not the contributors. I think that all three of us have said enough about our opinions on whether or not this page should stay and this long sideline is becoming somewhat irrelevant and disruptive to the deletion debate. Let's take a break from this page, cool down, and let others comment on this deletion. I am going to collapse the part of this discussion that begins after Moondyne's !vote to delete, in hopes that it will end; it is not appropriate on this page.Cheers, CP 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

class="messagebox collapsible collapsed"

Sideline text collapsed

Collapsing material not directly to articles nominated for deletion. Cheers, CP 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Here's my problem with you folks. Last night someone evidently went on the main article and changed Fernand Goux's name to 'Barthezz' and it took 45 minutes before one of the regulars reverted it. Where were you then? But if I make a change, it's reverted within seconds. So much for being guardians of the rules. Delete Picault's article. Fine. But why delete Goux's when there's a perfectly reasonable source? Only because he's a newly discovered French veteran. What rule is that, the law of the bandwagon? It's so hypocritical. One of the other articles has the same level of citation. You won't delete that, either because it's been on so long, or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment Some edits on Wikipedia are responded to more quickly than others. I believe this is not generally due to prejudice, but because it can take time for an editor to notice an edit that needs to be addressed. I happened to check the article in question soon after you had made the edit I proceeded to reverse. The fact that I reverted your change, 78.145.35.67, within "seconds", was a coincidence as a result. You may not believe me, but it is the truth. The source cited in Goux's article is reliable, imo, but I believe its coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. 78.145.35.67, you said "One of the other articles has the same level of citation". Please could you tell me which article that is? I ask because I would like to investigate it, to see if it deserves to be on Wikipedia. You also said "or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article." I do not see how my knowledge of the article on Goux has anything to do with my knowledge of another article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Celery, I'm going to warn you again not to be uncivil. It's not tolerated here and, frankly, it's not helping your argument any. If there is another article with the same level of citation, then you should point it out. I will note that I have successfully nominated several poorly-cited veteran articles and also plan to nominate Battista Serioli for a second time in due course. Cheers, CP 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think it's obvious to anyone that my last comment wasn't the slightest bit uncivil. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment I found it uncivil that you suggested that I "know nothing about this article". I advise you to follow what CP and I have said about being civil. Being uncivil in Wikipedia will not help your cause, and if you are uncivil in the future, you will find yourself in trouble. I hope that you will be civil at all times from now on, and I hope that you will be a valuable Wikipedian into the future. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment You implied that we were either incompetent or biased against you ("So much for being guardians of the rules") depending on how one takes that statement, called us hypocrites (actions being "so hypocritical") and told us that we "know nothing about this article". That's a far cry from commenting on the contributions, not the contributors. I think that all three of us have said enough about our opinions on whether or not this page should stay and this long sideline is becoming somewhat irrelevant and disruptive to the deletion debate. Let's take a break from this page, cool down, and let others comment on this deletion. I am going to collapse the part of this discussion that begins after Moondyne's !vote to delete, in hopes that it will end; it is not appropriate on this page.Cheers, CP 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. There should have been a separate AFD for it, since unlike the Picault case there is some verifiable information. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree that the article on Goux does contain information that can be cited to a reliable source (specifically, the website that is cited on the article). However, I believe the cited website's coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. If more reliable sources can be shown that mention Goux, I will consider advising that the article on Goux is kept. Until that time, I believe Goux's article should be deleted because WP:N has not been met, imo.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (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.