Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Torrenté

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. L Faraone 00:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Torrenté

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

I can't actually see much here to demonstrate or prove any real notability - the whole page reads like a poorly translated and overly biased fluff piece for a healer, with the only claim to notability that I can tell is the fact he was featured on a tv program Jac16888 ^Talk 22:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak keep~~ maybe TNT - the article itself is a mess. It's full of mistranslation and broken English and has some major manual of style issues. I suspect the subject might pass WP:GNG based on the sources and quotes from others about the subject, but it really is hard to tell. Yes, the original author checked at WP:ANI but the better place would have been WP:AFC where I don't think this would have passed in it's current form. I might spend some time trying to fix it, but it needs a lot of work. Stalwart111 05:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having had another look, I just can't support keeping this. Good-faith approach to creation or not, the equivalent was recently deleted from fr.wp and I can't find much of anything to support keeping it here. On closer inspection, the sourcing is flimsy and there certainly doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. I think we need much better sources before we could consider the subject notable. Stalwart111 05:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most journalistic sources relating to this person – including the article which was published in 24 heures – are not on free access on the Web. Nevertheless, a few of them can be found via this specialized local search engine which compiles most Swiss newspapers: →‎ [1]
TV broadcast by Radio télévision suisse on RTS Un can be watched online (streaming video): →‎ [2]
TV interview of Dr. Bertrand Kiefer – physician, theologian and director of the Revue médicale suisse – can also be watched online: →‎ [3]
The wp administrative team was contacted before publishing this new article: → [4]
Of course, this initial translation needs to be improved. Moreover, this article was just recently published today together with a request asking for additional proofreading, as shown at the beginning of the text and, simultaneously, via this message: →‎ [5]
Regards! — euphonie ^breviary 10:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wanted to keep this and suggest improving it, because people who do web searches on this sort of individual mostly see a mixture of self-serving puff pieces and attacks by competitors. In general, having a balanced and sourced Wikipedia article on someone like this is a Good Thing. Alas, in this particular case, I simply can not find any real evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sufficient level of notability is lacking. Stormbay (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Limited local newsworthiness is far from notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dominus Vobisdu. Clearly not notable enough to warrant an article on wikipedia, no matter how notable is the tv program. mgeo talk 14:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Are there any sources which perform an in-depth analysis? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources can be found via this specialized local search engine which compiles most Swiss newspapers: →‎ [6]. Please write the name with " " and then choose the following option: Sans restriction (which means no time restriction) or, in German, Ohne Einschränkung. Regards! — euphonie ^breviary 20:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources for this outside of Swiss TV coverage, and article has taken a turn for the worse with a huge infusion of WP:OR comparing Torrenté with other occult healers and movie portrayals of occult healers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LuckyLouie! Thank you for your message and your judicious remark! The litigious part has just been erased. Now remain only the different chapters related to the notions of ASC, NDE and OBE, including the diagnoses of several well-known (but controversial) doctors like Dr. Raymond Moody, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, Dr. Jean-Jacques Charbonier, Dr. Francesco Racanelli and so on. Kind regards! — euphonie ^breviary 22:44, 27 May 2013 (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.