Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Longpré

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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Longpré[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

@Rosguill: Incompetent deprod by Andrew Davidson. Prod reason still stands, Non notable filmmaker. Does not meet WP:GNG. Best claim to notability is co-directing Monsieur Pointu, which was nominated but did not win awards, which doesn't meet ]WP:FILMMAKER. » Shadowowl | talk 13:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as editor who originally nominated for PROD, de-prod never explained why article should be kept and did not make any changes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable director whose work was nominated for an Oscar. It's not difficult to find sources such as Animation: A World History. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Nominated for an Oscar. James500 (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not a measure of what the article says, it's a measure of the article's state of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James500, I think the last comment was for you. gidonb (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A before search did not find anything but directory listings and this article: [1]. As currently sourced, fails WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER - other sources are likely to be in French? SportingFlyer talk 07:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the journal article. With that and the book Animation: A World History, we have two good detailed sources and so WP:GNG is satisfied. No doubt there is more to find, as SportingFlyer says, and so there's no case for deletion. Improvement of the current text is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I agreed with you on the "two good detailed sources" I would have voted to keep. SportingFlyer talk 17:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that journal article is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself. So it's fine for supplementary verification of facts after GNG has already been covered off, but it does absolutely nothing to assist the initial satisfaction of GNG in the first place because people do not get to self-talk or self-write themselves over GNG. And the book does very little either; it just gives him a very brief biographical blurb in a section of the book that contains brief biographical blurbs of dozens of animators, in a format that we would have called "listicle" if it had been published to a website instead of in a paper book. So again, fine for supplementary verification of facts if there were a lot more solid and substantial sourcing alongside it, but not the magic golden key to a GNG pass in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsieur Pointu (film), without prejudice against recreation if somebody can locate better sources than I've been able to. One of his films getting an Oscar nomination is certainly a valid notability claim in principle for a filmmaker, but it's still not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to actually have any solid sourcing that goes beyond simply being able to cite routine film directories as technical verification that he existed. For starters, he was not the sole director of the film — he was one of two co-directors, and his colleague does not have a Wikipedia article at all. So if literally the only thing we can actually say or source about him is the fact that one of his films got an Oscar nomination, and the film already has its own article which says the same thing anyway, then that's grounds for his name to exist as a redirect to the article about his one notable film rather than grounds for a standalone article about him as a separate topic from the film. That said, I have access to far fewer newspapers for the purposes of digging out coverage that might have existed in the 1960s and 1970s (the period in which the bulk of his work, and his peak notability claim, exist) than I do from 1980 forward — there might have been much more coverage in Quebec newspapers than I have the ability to locate, so recreation would be acceptable if somebody can actually find evidence of that. But if all we can actually say or source about him is what's already here, then a redirect to the film conveys exactly the same information anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:BASIC per chapter in the Canadian Film Encyclopedia and two paragraphs in Animation: A World History: Volume II: The Birth of a Style - The Three Markets. gidonb (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:NARTIST#4 is met. The listings in the ONF website and film festivals such as [2]. This archived bio is in the German wiki's article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources coverage such as the Canadian Encyclopedia and book sources to just pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2018 (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.