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. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 00:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Jean-Jacques Razafindranazy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E - sources cited and WP:BEFORE search show notability is due to death. No award for his career. We can't have an article for doctor died due to covid. Störm (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I suspect that there may be quite a few similar pages created for individuals who have died in this way (see also Peg Broadband below), and this may warrant a Tea House discussion. For the moment, we should be led by WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. First off, the nomination is not even wrong - no effort has been made to add the sources in the French article. There are TV and newspaper articles that can be used as sources. Secondly, the nomination seems to reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and unconscious bias (Wikipedia has been rightly accused of inherent bias); deleting this article will cause us great harm and unnecessary controversy (we've kept a Chinese doctor's article who is only famous for fighting Corona virus, but not an African doctor who did the same thing?). Finally the nomination outright ignores the excellent sourcing; nowhere does English Wikipedia require sources only to be in English. NOTMEMORIAL does not override WP:GNG. Premiere can mean "first" or "best known" in French, and it's used in both senses in the French sources. Bearian ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per Bearian. 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 16:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Bearian.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep , per above and with the French sources it is notable. Alex-h ( talk) 12:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I believe both WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E applies to this case, I prefer this to be deleted but would wait for response by Bearian. I cannot find anything extraordinary done by this doctor that millions of other health care workers have not done. The death was sad and unfortunate, but it remains to be seen if it was impactful. Bearian 3 users have commented according to your keep vote but we should note that many doctors have died across the world and almost always their death is covered in detail. If we keep this then we will have to keep each and every article of doctor because they died with COVID and were covered by media. The Chinese doctor did a lot of notable things, like raising voice against censorship/activism, other then dying, that made him notable. Take an example of Usama Riaz he was a similar case but he had raised his voice for PPE (activism) and working conditions for doctor that gave him coverage in social media and his death caused outrage. He also received the government award that made him notable. Just his death would not have made him eligible for an article. Razafindranazy's French article is also being discussed for notability and it seems it is heading for deletion Cedix ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

(1) There are three French-language sources that talk to the impact his work and death had on the French Republic's response (numbered 7, 8, and 9 as of this moment). These include a statement by that nation's health minister, and two other articles about how he advocated for the equivalent of PPE before he died lead to changes in protocols after he died. (2) Again, I can not stress enough how bad this looks for the Wikimedia Foundation. Millions of people are checking the List_of_deaths_due_to_coronavirus_disease_2019 page every day. It will be a public relations disaster if we start to delete selectively some articles but keep others when the only difference is the skin color or type of gonad of the dead human being. To be blunt, ignore all rules when it comes to the best thing for the Foundation. Bearian ( talk) 17:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Bearian I have carefully read all the three sources [1] [2] [3] that you linked. Sadly, I did not find any line/phrase that talk about the extraordinary "impact of his work" or anything along those lines. Can you please quote those lines. I disagree that this looks bad for WMF. We cannot possibly create a WP:MEMORIAL for every dead doctor. If there is an encyclopedic information only then should an article be kept, (see my examples above). "This doctor died in the line of work" is the only encyclopedic info. At best it should be mentioned in "COVID in France" article. If this is kept on such flimsy grounds, then I am going to cite this discussion and create a few hundred articles on Dead doctors and Nurses, because almost all of those great, brave and wonderful people have been covered in detail in their respective national media for their supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. Cedix ( talk) 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I would not oppose that, as long as their articles pass WP:SIGCOV. Bearian ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep In France, this doctor is part and parcel of the history related to this worldwide pandemic for several reasons. Firstly, he was the very first therapist who died of Covid-19 during—and because of—his professional practice. Secondly, his death triggered a wave of indignation within the medical profession, bringing to light the scandal of the lack of means—lack of masks, visors and prophylactic equipment—to protect doctors and nurses who unwittingly exposed themselves to the ravages of the virus. Thirdly, as a result of the above, the disappearance of this E.R. doc. has highlighted the existence of many flaws in the health system prevailing in France as well as in other countries. In view of the above, his death and the consequences that followed were echoed by the Minister of Health in France, Olivier Véran, as well as by the President of the Association of Emergency Physicians, Patrick Pelloux, in addition to the former French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. Furthermore, there are numerous individually targeted references, punctuated by the triggering events that followed. Their nominative contents are directly and specifically associated with the name of this doctor, given that those writings and reports have been relayed in the plural by a plethora of secondary “focused” and “centered” sources—mostly reliable and emanating from reputable national journalistic or television media—among which are France Inter → [4], RTL → [5], France Info → [6], BFM TV → [7], L’Express → [8], La Première → [9], Paris Match → [10], etc. In light of the above, this cannot be considered, therefore, as an anecdotic tragic death among, alas, so many other victims. On the contrary, it is much rather a major, fundamental and symbolically crucial event in the epistemological genesis of the chronological emergence of which this trying period is regrettably marred. The death of this hospital practitioner is thus at the implicit origin of a national awareness which, by extension, could no longer conceal a scathing reality by seeking, as was the case until then, to caulk it under a bushel of pretences. — euphonie ^{( talk)} 21:18 / 23:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC) / 00:18, 01:26 17 April 2020 (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.