Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clément Gosselin

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 keep per (1) DGG's argument, which most everyone seems to accept; and (2) the improvements to the article since it was nominated. Non-admin closure because it's not controversial and we have a backlog today. Shalom ^Hello 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clément Gosselin

Clément_Gosselin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Delete. Subject is not more notable than any other of 20,000 revolutionary soldiers. If him, why not the whole officer corps? Interesting bio, but looks like somebody's ancestor. In other words, this is s genealogy page for somebody.Student7 11:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep yes, he was somebody's ancestor, as are most historical figures who didn't die in childhood. But the suspicious-looking link to the family web page is actually to a transcript of the entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biiogrtaphy So the main source for this is Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which we have accepted before as evidence of notability, as with those for other countries. (I admit that their standards seem a little more flexible than the oxford DNB) Based on their article,"Thus from the summer of 1778 until the summer of 1780 Gosselin returned secretly to the colony a number of times, spreading the rumour that an invasion by the Congressional armies was imminent and that this time they would be accompanied by French regiments.." He seems to have been a notable spy. The article, in apparently machine-translated French, does not really show the notability clearly. (It leaves to a footnote that he figured in a major CBC series)DGG
• KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. I liked the article. Callelinea 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because you like something doesn't mean we should have an article on it. So you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • KEEP First of all thank you Callelinea and DGG for your support :-). As for Morgan and Student7, I totally agree with you that I'm not objective. But I let people correct me and I don't argue when they do. The 2nd Canadian Regiment article was done by an Army Captain currently in Irak, others people are investigating french canadian in the West during the revolution. Comments I get are that this is interesting. I totally agree that my pages are not perfect yet and that I need your help. And if you keep this one page I will put all information about his spy activity. This spy action was important because it made the British stayed in quebec fearing an attack. Clément was also a founding member of the Order of Cincinati with Steuben. So he was not an ordinary soldier. Clément repport was ask by congress and sent to Georges Washington, he did not just spread rumor (even if those action did a lot to worried Haldimand) but he also provided many information on the state of the British in the North (we still have is repport in the Washington paper). They also built a military road to worried the British in the North. As for point of view I agree that this regiment is hard to name. Were they american, canadian, french ? He was much more then just a spy, he was a recruting agent for 2 regiment in Quebec. Contributing to Saratoga and Brandywine actions. for the Family bio it's true that the link is a copy, I'll remove it if you keep the article. Coming into Quebec when you are notoriously not welcome is the stuff that James Bond was doing :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etienne2007 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Officer of no particular distinction. Even as a spy, he isn't notable. Spreading rumors? Not exactly James Bond or Mata Hari. Clarityfiend 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am willing to concede that inclusion in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography = Sufficiently notable for people of Gosselin's vintage - heck, people with some selection criteria selected him to write about and wrote about him nearly 200 years after he died, this is more than a flash in the pan (or media spotlight were this guy just dead and the "scandal" of his career splashed across the press). Carlossuarez46 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Dictionary of Canadian Biography is relatively select in whom it features. This man is notable enough that scholars are writing about him 200 years after he died, which makes me think he passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 05:42, 30 June 2007 (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.