Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zacharie Jacob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zacharie Jacob

Zacharie Jacob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable biography - does not assert notability and contains no references to support it. Ozgod 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is this the same actor (aka Montfleury) despised by the hero in the play Cyrano de Bergerac? It's the right time period, c. 1640. If so, then definitely Keep and add to article. Strong keep. I've added the Cyrano connection to the article. Clarityfiend 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No vote for the moment. If the connection can be proven, I'd say it's a strong keep personally. see below --Whsitchy 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep see [1] page two, bottom. --Whsitchy 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, although careful reading of Whstchy's source indicates that the play mocks Zacharie's son Antoine Jacob de Montfleury. I think both probably deserve articles. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'll admit, I was confused over who was being mocked. --Whsitchy 05:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I believe it is Zacharie who is being mocked. In the body of the article, it says that Z. had a large stomach (and died partly because of it), and the sidenote about Cyrano refers to it as well. It is not stated whether Antoine was similarly rotund. Also, Z. was the actor, as is the character in the play. Cyrano derides the character's acting skills. Clarityfiend 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I changed my mind again. The article is pretty confusingly formatted, but it seems clear that both father and son were involved in the feud in different ways. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A tag asking for sources might have been more appropriate than an Afd even for a dude from like the olden days. Nick mallory 05:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nick mallory, although I'd think a tag would be more appropriate given that he's from the olden days. Someone doesn't stop being notable simply because the information on him is in older books not easily found in the average American public library. --Charlene 11:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My automatic assumption is that something that rated an article in the 1911 Britannica is 99% likely to remain notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd likely add 1% to that. --Charlene 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Could use another source or two, but this seems obviously notable. Realkyhick 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Strange nomination. If the guy made enough of an impact that he is remembered three centuries later surely he merits coverage in the wikipedia, without regard to whether the article contains the magic phrase "...is notable because...". When I start an article shortly after going through {{afd}} hell, I sometimes try to find a way to insert that magic phrase. It always reads very artificially to me. It is a policy that bugs me.
    • Disclaimer — Lack of an assertion of notability was one of the justifications nominator used when nominating an article I started for deletion. So I decided to take a look at the pattern of his nominations for {{afd}}, and the opinions he expressed in other {{afd}} fora.
    • FYI — Nominator is currently a candidate for administrator.
    • Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:08, 1 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.