Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succès de scandale

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.  Sandstein  20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Succès de scandale (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)

It is a badly written, unsourced collection of information Trumpetrep (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - article is a mess because it's a poor translation of the French article. I was going to say delete per WP:NOTDIC, but, as a similar manner to schadenfreude it really has made its way into the popular lexicon outside of French and has no real English equivalent; as an expression it is used in headlines in New York Times, Time Magazine; and even Tech Crunch, and it's used in article context in Vanity Fair and Wall Street Journal. These don't mean notability on their own but I think it should just tagged notability. I've never worked on an article about an expression before; if others see potential I'd be happy to TNT this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy until decent references are provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Shouldn't the article's creator, User:Francis Schonken, have been notified of this nomination? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops lost this one out of sight since before there was a really operational references system. I think Wikipedia should have an article on the topic, mentioning at least some of the best-known examples (duly referenced of course), so I suppose exiling it temporarily to user space is not much of a solution. Will see what I can do over the next days, and hope for some similar cooperation from other people who may have been alerted here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article seems unsure whether it's specifically about scandal in late 19th century French culture which is a legitimate, if specialised, subject[1] (which could however be included in other articles on Third Republic culture). If more general, we need sources discussing succès de scandale as a topic (more generally than saying about individual works "X was a succès de scandale"). Turning it into a list of artistic and literary scandals is possible: Scandal#List_of_scandals omits that topic, while having lists of most other kinds of scandals. For this kind of dictionary definition-like article, we either need in-depth general discussion, or to turn it into a list. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - forgot about this one. I'll read up on the French and see if there's a clearer notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:IMPERFECT, weak writing is not an adequate reason to delete. There's plenty more to pull together here such as Épater la bourgeoisie, shock jock, obscenity controversies, Miley Cyrus, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – added refs, and replaced dubious content by referenced content. Propose to replace the general {{refimprove}} template by more specific {{cn}}s where needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is supported by reliable sources which establish notability. Thanks to Francis Schonken for cleaning up this article. (Though I understand that poor writing is not a reason for deletion). 15:32, 20 May 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.