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. Some editors have also proposed a merger if the article stays insubstantial, which should be discussed on the talk page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole de Bengy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

PROD'd by me, de-PROD'd with no reason given aside from "removing PROD". The subject's main claim to importance is that he was a Jesuit martyr massacred along with 70 others in 1871. The group is clearly notable as a whole, however, I can't find any sources that discuss de Bengy specifically and in-depth as an individual, aside from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The source that's been added to the article is a blog, so it doesn't qualify as WP:RS. It doesn't cite its sources so there is nothing to follow up on from there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The notability of the subject seems adequate and, in any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion which are preferred per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Catholic Encyclopedia is enough to demonstrate independent notability, even if we were to want another source for neutrality. StAnselm (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Martyrs of the Paris Commune, which is currently a redirect to Paris Commune, but should be a substantive one. That target is a general article, where the martyrdoms are not (or hardly) mentioned. Unless considered for canonisation, each martyr is probably individually NN, but collectively the subject is probably one that deserves an article. This one currently has two sources of which Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I'm 100% on board with a merge to an expanded Martyrs of the Paris Commune article. FWIW I'm not disputing that CE is reliable, but that as a single source it doesn't satisfy GNG (at least in my opinion). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not oppose keeping if this were filled out. In reading the article, I assumed there would be little else about his life. I was thinking we would end off with the martyrs article containing a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Once again, for an article to pass AfD sources only have to exist, they don't have to be in the article. As it turns out, there are lots of nineteenth-century French sources, as a GBooks search shows. Which is why he made it into the CE in the first place - his memoirs were published the year he died, and seem to have been well received. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly passes WP:V, WP:NOR, and with more sources clearly available on google books, would pass WP:NPOV, if it doesn't already. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now. I would prefer a merge into a more substanial article on the Martyrs of the Paris Commune, but until that happens, this article should be kept as having demonstrated notability. If someone creates the new article, this should be able to be speedily merged/redirected. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2017 (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.