This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to France. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|France|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to France. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Purge page cache

watch

• See also: Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board

Scan for France related AfDs Scan for France related Prods Scan for France related TfDs

Arnaud Honoré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find WP:GNG-passing coverage. Doesn't seem to have played in any top league in France, made four appearances in Cypriot First Division so look maybe more into Cypriot sources if I missed something. Notable to say I made this article myself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of foreign football players in Cypriot First Division#France, where his name is mentioned, or Delete per nomination if no significant coverage is found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Don't think redirect is appropriate given he played for multiple teams. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Internationaux Féminins de la Vienne – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of coverage in sources and references/Lacking notability JustMakeTheAccount (JustMakeTheAccount) 22:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and France. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extensively covered in e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Iffy★Chat -- 05:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks to be easily covered just like all the other yearly editions of this event. The nominator has been on Wikipedia for a whole three weeks so perhaps this was an error? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article 74 of the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While all articles and amendments of the Constitution of the United States have Wikipedia articles, only Article 2 and Article 49 of the Constitution of France have such referenced coverage here because they deal with significant topics of its national symbols and separation of powers. In comparison, Article 74 is a niche topic that has not attracted significant commentary, hence why the page currently only cites the constitution itself. The topic of how France governs the overseas collectivity is briefly covered at Ordonnance#Overseas territories, though I do not think this page should be a redirect to that brief mention. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and France. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As a side discussion, note that the recently created pages for Articles 2 and 74 use a much longer title scheme than the older page for Article 49. These should be standardized. On one hand, the longer title differentiates from articles of the numerous older constitutions, but on the other, we have no Wikipedia pages on articles of those constitutions, so the disambiguation seems unnecessary. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does the article of the Constitution is or was controversial? Does it have an historical meaning? Doesn't seem to have a place in Wikipedia. It doesn't have WP:SIGCOV so it should be deleted. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. A page that merely restates a law, without any other context or secondary sources, is not an encyclopedia article. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law can't do it all: we are already overburdened with a backlog of several pressing issues, including an embarrassment of unsourced articles, assessing tens of thousands of stubs for their proper class, loss of project members due to burnout or death, and ongoing controversies such as Mark Zaid and Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ZephyrMusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Recently recreated article previous deleted. I speedied it as G4 this morning, but the page creator User:SparklingBlueMoon says sources are improved so I undeleted it on request. I'm not satisfied this meets BLP or BAND per applied or found sources. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets BLP and WP:GNG. I am convinced that this person can be included in our encyclopedia. He appears in several reliable media where articles are entirely devoted to him, such as in La Voix du Nord, l'Observateur, and l'Avenir. He also appears in reliable media such as Canal FM and Muséanima. There are also interviews, but I do not count them as they cannot demonstrate notoriety by their nature as primary sources, but it is important to know that they exist and that they can be used in a non-abusive way and by being coupled with reliable sources to support the article. The sources span several years, which shows a long-term interest from the media, namely that not all the sources can be found online or in physical version in the article. There are enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article about him in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Still unclear that he meets WP:BLP or WP:MUSICIAN. The article reads as WP:PROMO with all kinds of details that are unnecessary for someone of his standing. As far as sourcing: The Canal FM source mentions a "Karl" but without last name and without any sort of in-depth coverage. That is not significant coverage that would count towards notability. The Muséanima site is inaccessible. Wikifamouspeople remains user-generated and unreliable. The BBC article doesn't mention him at all, and its inclusion is a bit of WP:SYNTH. As for l'Observateur and L'Avenir, I'm also not convinced that the articles are anything other than minor interest pieces. They don't really establish global notability. I have newspaper articles written about me and that interview me; and yet I am not notable enough for a wiki page. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:NBIO. I've only seen one RS in the reference section of the article. All the others are mentions, tangentially related to the subject, user generated pages or broken. Couldn't find any other RS. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, it is in accordance with WP:SIGCOV... I don't know how you checked the sources... I easily count more than 5 reliable sources, La Voix du Nord which has a Wikipedia article here, L'Avenir the same, l'Observateur is also a reliable newspaper which is also certified "Journalism Trust Initiative", Canal FM and Muséanima are also reliable sources. The majority of sources are entirely written about this person, we go far beyond simple mentions. For user-generated content, you must be referring to Wikifamouspeople? Despite its name, it is not actually a wiki where everyone can contribute, I can't see Leonardo Dicaprio or Kevin Hart going to this site to create their profile, it is an editorial team that writes profiles with the sources it finds on people who are at least notable. With a simple search I found other sources, obviously I didn't find and put all the sources that can be found on the internet or in physical form in the article. I've seen articles that are much less well sourced but have no problem, we don't understand anything anymore. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  La Voix du Nord is the only source I could consider. As Darth Stabro said, l'Observateur is a minor interest piece. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:MUSICIAN.

  Could you provide a link to an article in the L'Avenir site (www.lavenir.net)?

  The Canal FM source is only a mention. Muséanima is down and a very minor site, mostly of video clips. In the front page and in every page of Wikifamouspeople there's a link to create a free profile. Not RS at all.

  If you find other reliable sources with a simple search, please add them to the article or to a comment so the community can review them. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The AfD is not a vote but is based on arguments and explanations, so I'll take the time to explain why I think this person is eligible for inclusion on our Wikipedia:

If we look at all the criteria that apply to the person:

WP:BLP : Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the utmost care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Verifiability? → Yes, the text is based on reliable sources Written in a neutral tone? → Yes, the text is written in Wikipedia's recommended style and does transcribe what is stated in the sources Original research? → No, all the text is written based on sources; there is no unsourced information.

WP:BLP is respected.

Next, for WP:GNG : A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the topic.

"Significant coverage"→ Yes, this article has sources spanning several years, demonstrating that the person has generated media attention over several years. Furthermore, the page contains articles from reliable media outlets such as La Voix du Nord, L'Observateur, L'Avenir and others, entirely focused on the person and of sufficient length; it is not just a simple mention or a few short lines.

"Reliable" → Yes, several sources discussing this person are known to be reliable news sites, and some even have their own Wikipedia page here, such as La Voix du Nord and L'Avenir. L’Observateur which has existed for over 170 years and has the Journalism Trust certification is a reliable source, there are also Canal FM and Muséanima as reliable sources.

"Sources" → Yes, a large proportion of sources are secondary; they are sometimes combined with other types of sources to support the article.

"Independent of the subject" → Yes, the majority of sources are undoubtedly independent and written by journalists. If we take the case of Wikifamouspeople, it is not a user-generated source because it is not actually a real Wiki and only a few members of the editorial staff can write profiles.

WP:GNG is also respected.

For WP:MN

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theater groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. → Yes

So he also respects WP:MN.

According to a contributor, the article reads like promotional material, but all the content is sourced, there is no unpublished work, and there are no links attempting to redirect to this person's music or these networks, and if passages seem promotional then they can be removed or reformulated but that is not an argument for deletion. Too much information? Like any Wikipedia biography, I find it logical to talk about their childhood, their education, their musical style and influences, etc. If we look at Canal FM, we see that the person's name is Karl, he is 20 years old at the time of writing, and finally, we clearly recognize him in the photo that illustrates him on Canal FM, so we are indeed talking about the right person. Muséanima was accessible recently, it covered the subject in detail, it may be a temporary outage of the site, if it does not improve I will recover the archived version on Wayback Machine, the article is not lost. For Wikifamouspeople, I won't explain again why the content isn't actually user-generated. L'Observateur and L'Avenir write about the subject in detail and are reliable secondary sources. Also, I would like to remind you that as stated in WP:N it says "There is no fixed number of sources required", there is no minimum or maximum number of references for a subject to be included in Wikipedia, we are just asked that there are reliable sources and that it meets criteria, which is the case here. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With the sources we currently have and with the criteria of WP:BLP, WP:GNG and WP:MN respected, we could keep the article. If passages need to be removed, let's remove them. There are already quite a few reliable sources, but the contributors seem disturbed or undecided because they would like even more sources, in this case let's not delete the article but simply put the "Citation Needed" template at the top of the article, this template exists for that. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite de Baugé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. Very little information in article besides that she owned a castle and married someone else who may be notable.ash (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One source [6] says that she founded the charterhouse of Poletins-en-Bresse (which this article states that she was buried at). It seems likely that a woman who bought a castle and founded a charterhouse in the 13th century would have something written about her. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Biographies in books from the 1600s and 1700s [7], [8], showing notability several hundred years after hear death. Many hits in the BNF Gallica as well [9] Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Humbert V de Beaujeu. The sources above just repeat the same few facts about her genealogy and dowry (and founding a monastery), which are certainly worth including in her husband's article, however. Ingratis (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC) see below[reply]
• Keep I have added sources and info, and I believe that she meets WP:BASIC at least. As Oaktree b has noted, she is included in histories published many centuries after her death. There is information that she was buried in the choir of the church of the Charterhouse of Poletins, which has been described as "one of the most sacred parts of the church and a very prestigious place for burials" [10]. If we had an article about the Charterhouse of Poleteins, that might be a suitable target for a merge or redirect, but I do not think it would be suitable to merge to her husband's article. He was busy going on crusades and visiting Constantinople, and being governor of Languedoc), whereas she was active in the Ain département. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she had her own seal [11]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on additions by Rebecca Green which show that she M de B did more than being genealogical. Ingratis (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP: HEY. Another rescue by RebeccaGreen. Bearian (talk)

St. Dalfour France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines.​ Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Xrimonciam: What WP:BEFORE did you conduct prior to nomination? i know you're a dog 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article has enough independent, reliable sources. A quick web search shows many more. WP:N is covered. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Swierot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After defusing a couple WP:REFBOMBs, the notability of this young footballer didn't seem as clear. After a search, the most I found from third-party sources was this routine contract extension announcement and trivial mentions like 1. There is also a bit here, although it consists of quotes from the club's training center director. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep :

  • WP:FOOTYN :
  • Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure.
  • Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.
  • Swierot played for Lyon, winning the French Division 1 Championship in 2024, and with Reims. + UEFA Women's Under-17 Championship (which she won), UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship.

  https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/10490-swierot-julie/fiche.html

  Third party sources

  https://www.lunion.fr/id697342/article/2025-03-13/le-stade-de-reims-pourra-cette-fois-faire-jouer-julie-swierot-face-lolympique

  https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2024/08/02/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-une-saison-et-est-pretee-a-reims

  https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2023/08/01/le-futur-de-l-ol-feminin-c-est-elles

  https://africafootunited.com/transfert-f-lequipe-feminine-du-stade-de-reims-signe-marion-haelewyn-et-trois-autres-joueuses/

  https://www.lyonfoot.com/article/6634/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-un-an-et-file-en-pret-a-reims

  https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/mercato-swierot-prolongee-par-lol-feminin-puis-pretee-a-reims,336445.html

  https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/ol-academie-dix-jeunes-joueuses-ont-obtenu-leur-baccalaureat,334629.html

  And I wonder how people feel about a user specifically targeting another user after a disagreement. Harassment, stalking. ProudWatermelon (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all brief mentions or transfer reports, none of these are really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Might meet notability requirements with the pro starts, but we need sourcing. Simply mentioning the person in a brief article less than a paragraph long isn't enough. I don't see sourcing we can use what's in the article is primary. The sources in the comment above are brief mentions or articles less than a paragraph long. It's likely TOOSOON for this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning Govvy and BeanieFan11. Barr Theo (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barr Theo. I see you are new to AfDs, and I'm sure this ping was done in good faith. Please note that you need to be very careful about pinging editors to a discussion. If it appears this is done to influence one side or another, it would be considered vote stacking. The active AfD participants will usually find their way to discussions they are interested in. If you need specific expertise, it is a good idea to explain why you are summoning that editor. E.g. because they speak a language used in the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barr Theo: You're free to strikethrough your own comment if you'd like, but please don't delete someone else's. I've restored Sirfurboy's comment. JTtheOG (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "yes, there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively - but there is a longstanding convention to allow young players/those with ongoing careers more leeway, and I think the same should be allowed here. He is 19, and more sources will be written in due course. If they are not or he never plays again etc. then delete at that point." Barr Theo (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You haven't even got this person's gender right... GiantSnowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman: It's funny you say that, because I copied and pasted this comment from you (hence why I placed it under "quotations")... I found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caden Tolentino from August 2021... I was trying to talk the way you guys do... Barr Theo (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You should not be blindly copying & pasting other editor's comments from unrelated AFDs, especially not ones that came before NFOOTBALL was abolished. GiantSnowman 00:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  or is it a double standard ProudWatermelon (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I waited this long because I was hoping some sources would come to light. Women are under-represented in Wikipedia articles. But articles needs sources and this one does not have the requisite multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Bar Theo, or anyone else, can we find a suitable redirect target as an ATD? If not, I will be reluctantly !voting delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Ninh Bình (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. No issue with French colonial sources. Colonial-era narratives are reliable sources. The sources used are not primary, and independent corroboration is not required for WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It relies almost entirely on French colonial-era sources from the 1870s–1880s (Romanet du Caillaud, Charton, d’Estampes, Société académique indochinoise). Only two modern sources (Phạm 1985 and Short 2014) are cited, and neither independently corroborates the extraordinary claim (7 men capturing 1,700 soldiers). Per WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, such extraordinary historical claims require strong independent confirmation, which is missing here. Article currently gives a misleading sense of undisputed fact. OutsidersInsight (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting France related pages including deletion discussions