Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel de Kerviler

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. Sandstein 16:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel de Kerviler

Marcel de Kerviler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no substnatial sources connected to this article. It also fails our notability guidelines for Olympians. I searched for sources. All I came up with was a name drop in the report of the Olympics he was in, and another name drop. Not a single substantial source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage here indicating he became an admiral, and this shows he authored several books about navigation too. Will ask French speakers for more help on this guy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sources says that person was born in 1907. Are we even sure they are the same person? If they are we have to significantly reviese this article because it has his birth year off by 3 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am fairly sure it's the same person, as it clearly mentions the 1952 Olympic participation in Helsinki at the end of paragraph 1. With that said, I have struggled similarly to find anything significant here. I don't think the participation in the Olympics is going to be notable in itself so keeping the article rests on uncovering sufficient historic material, perhaps. I am leaning delete myself, but prepared to see if Lugnuts can conjure up anything from native french speakers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, def. the same person, as I'd spotted the Olympics mention in that too. Just that his DOB is 11th July 1910 here and 11th July 1907 there. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mention in a family genealogy or a bibliography do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). HopsonRoad (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a search of French Wikipedia says, "L'article « Marcel de Kerviler » n'existe pas sur ce wiki !", indicating that he has not yet been determined to be notable there. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC) HopsonRoad (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • HopsonRoad, Whether another Wikipedia has an article or not doesn't matter. Curbon7 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that HopsonRoad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Ingratis (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to note—The communication referred to here occurred after I registered my opinion here. Its purpose was to ask whether "admiral" had the same connotation in French as in English, to which I replied that it did. HopsonRoad (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did indeed - apologies to you and to John Pack Lambert. Ingratis (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, regretfully, as I have been unable to find sufficient material that I think would satisfy basic notability and I cannot see any notability of him as an author (by way of being discussed or noted in secondary sources). The Olympics involvement in itself seems negligible. @Lugnuts: If you are able to present something more substantial please do so, as I have not been fruitful in my searches. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rats! No worries, thanks for taking time to have a look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Redirect to List of sailors at the Summer Olympics, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that redirecting to a list article which itself would not offer anything meaningful to the individual would be helpful. Open to useful ATDs suggestions though, as i'd sooner look down that route than outright delete. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Finding a fair few mentions via Gallica (which does not have the most helpful search facility), mostly in passing, but struggling to find any significant independent coverage. Anyway, I've expanded the article a little. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The Legion of Honour (and other honours) should pass WP:ANYBIO. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very unconvinced by the first of the additional sources, which is merely a list of *many* individuals, not particularly standout? The second of the additional sources definitely on the surface seems good though. Unsure if it's sufficient in itself, but as is often the case with foreign individuals, the sourcing is not in English. It's helpful for sure, but is it significant enough? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Marine is a magazine by and for the Association of Reserve Officers of the French Navy. Is that actually independent coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, hence my original comment. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The anybio criterion noted states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", but are we suggesting that the Croix de Guerre 1939–1945, as noted in the article, is well known or significant? The article for this suggests that it was "to honour people who fought with the Allies against the Axis forces at any time during World War II", which could be fairly run-of-the-mill and not significant as such? I may be wrong, and it would help if someone who knows more about it to clarify if that is a significant honour which is enough to retain. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The orders of merit (e.g. Legion d'honneur) probably meet the criteria but even so, we still require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to write an article that complies with policy (WHYN). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow discussion on the source quality to continue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The expansion by Wjemather tips the article into WP:ANYBIO. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Work done on the article demonstrates encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. The sources added to the article are either not SIGCOV or not independent, so GNG has not been demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It passes the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. Atchom (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.