Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Dommergue

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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Dommergue

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

No reliable sources AnSq (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 1. In general, I don't believe that YouTube is a reliable source. While the sources are actual interviews, which is where I might make an exception, I think that the presentation of these ones have some problems. The biggeest of these is in the title: it (ref 6) says that it's "The Truth" about the Holocaust, which it clearly isn't. The video description further expands on this with an idiotic Holocaust denying rant. The description on the other video (ref 3) literally uses the phrase "Jewish question".

2. The Spanish article is even worse. It's much shorter and has only two references, one of which is a dead link. I suppose the second source (in French, with no link; ref 5 in the English version) is fine as long as it actually says that, although I can't verify it. Maybe saying "no" reliable sources was an exaggeration.

3. Google sites (ref 1) is not a reliable source for anything, especially people.

4. Ref 2 appears to be a direct copy of a no longer existing Frech Wikipedia article.

5. Ref 4 is to a website dedicated to Holocaust denial. I do not consider Holocaust denial organizations to be reliable sources on anything, including Holocaust denial.

6. Just in general, I don't believe that this person is especially notable.

--AnSq (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed dud sources. That leaves a book that I have not read. Searching news looks plausible, until I clicked and realized that his name was often in the comments section, not in the news story. The third hit I got on a news google search for his name was AgoraVox, and even there he is in the comments, not in the "article" about two minor anti-Semites. Many claims now in the article, such as "is a professor" I could not source. Given that he is French, possible he once taught (was a professeur i.e. was a teacher) in some sort of school, I could not find where; I can find no university affiliation. He seems to be little-known a garden variety crank.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sole mention of his name that I have found so far in a reliable news source is in a blog on Le Monde discussing a petition opposing the Gayssot Act, where his name is mentioned in a list of what Le Monde calls "Holocaust deniers" who have signed the petition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FRINGE subject with no evidence of significant mainstream coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2015 (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.