Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les géants de Mu

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 redirect to Bob Morane#Graphic novel bibliography. The consensus is that this does not merit a stand-alone article, but redirecting the title to a place where it's mentioned seems appropriate. Deor (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Les géants de Mu[edit]

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

Unsourced for almost 7 years, no establishment of notability. McDoob AU93 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no notability. For some reason it is not in the French WP either. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - Delete it if you will, most of the information is in the article about Bob Morane, except the printing history. However, what is the point of deleting such articles? It is accurate (google gives several catalogs), does no harm, and could motivate someone, even if 10 or 20 years from now, to contribute more content, e.g. plot summary. Think of it as a stub. The reason why it has no sources is that it was written before references were required (or even allowed) by Wikipedia. Would you consider that the work spent in putting up harmless articles for deletion, forcing editros to come to this forum do discuss the deletion, etc. could be better employed constructively in other articles -- adding contents, fixing style and grammar, deleting thse useless and irritating editorial tags, etc. Not to mention that deleting an article, even trivial like this one, means throwing away perhaps half an hour of well-intentined work of someone who was trying to help Wkipedia -- the sort of people that Wikipedia desperately needs. Such an arrogant negative feedback ("your work is garbage, we don't want it") for something as arbitrary as "non-notability" drives such people away. (I did a statistical study of the growth of Wikipedia, some years ago, and noted that the body of editors had been shrinking since 2006, when seeral stricter "purity" policies were instituted. I am hardly the only one to have noticed that scary trend. Since then I saw many attempts by the Foundation to reverse that trend, but unfortunately the Foundation seems unable or unwilling to recognize the main causes of the problem -- which include the AfD mechanism. Sigh. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly merge to Bob Morane. No sources are cited demonstrating stand-alone notability. Sandstein 11:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 4 July 2014 (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.