Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Barou

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Barou[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)

This individual seems to be fairly well-known as a writer and for having worked with Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault and other intellectuals. Still, the sources in the article do not demonstrate his own notability: This one was written by the subject himself and does nothing to show he's notable. This tells us much about the newspaper but nothing about the man. This is just a catalogue entry about a book. There are many, seemingly self-published sources about this person. What I would like to see is clearly reliable and independent evidence that he meets WP:GNG ~~or WP:AUTHOR~~. If he truly is an eminent figure in publishing, there would be a good deal of reliable coverage on him. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the below discussion, I am now convinced he has some claim to notability because of his involvement in the publication of Time for Outrage!. Since he would not otherwise be notable, I think a merge with the article on the book or a yet-to-be-created article on his publishing firm would be a good compromise. The firm has an article in the French Wiki and could well be notable per the coverage presented below. Maybe Brxdxe and Govvy can get behind this? Modussiccandi (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources. I realise the original article was a stub and not very fleshed out but after googling him and realising there was no Wiki page I was shocked - he has written many books/essays I have come across while reading for my degree. Hopefully the article is a bit better now as there are several notable sources in it, more people will add to it I'm sure.Brxdxe (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Brxdxe, thank you very much for participating in this discussion. I've had a look at the sources you provided. They confirm my impression that he is an influential publisher. But I'm still not quite sure that there is completely independent, significant covergae about him as an individual. The sources you provided mainly cover his publishing firm. The NY Times source is definitely reliable and contains some info about him. Might there be a source with more in depth about coverage him and not the books he published? Modussiccandi (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Most of the results are in French and as I am not a native speaker its been a bit tough finding sources - but I'll keep looking!Brxdxe (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I did a google search it seems mostly ways to buy his books to start with. But then I see he has published 29 publications per [1], then he is published with magazine contributions also, I would go for weak pass towards, WP:NAUTHOR. You have to do quite a deep google search, but there are some interviews and such. So weak keep for me. Govvy (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that there are enough sources now to keep the article. There are several news articles about his publishing house, his books, and some other sources providing biographical details. He's definitely notable! Anyway, I've done what I can :) Brxdxe (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brxdxe, I still have to disagree: the subject is not, as you say, "definitely notable". For that, he would have to pass WP:GNG with flying colours. We would need several reliable and independent sources that cover him in depth. I would agree with Govvy that the subject is closer to meeting WP:AUTHOR. Govvy, could you weigh in again and help identify which section of WP:AUTHOR he meets? In my view, he might meet 3. for having played a part in founding the magazine Libération. The requirement is that he played a "major role" in its creation. The Wikipedia article of this journal does not mention him, so I think it's fair to at least question how important he was in the foundation. The supposed source for this information defends Sartre for his late political activism and involvement with Maoism and traces his intellectual milieu in the final decade of his life. I cannot find in this source anything that tells me Barou played a part in founding Libération. The article mentions a journal called Cause du people, but it doesn't say whether the subject founded it. There is this article which talks about the journal's switch to non-profit. But it does not contain anything on Barou. If any of you could provide a quotation from a third-party source that tells me beyond doubt that he had a major role in co-founding Sartre's journal I am willing to change my mind. I'm not trying to be pedantic — if he is notable for co-founding the journal, there will be detailed third-party sources about this. As it is, criterion 3 is failed in my view. Now, criterion 4 which states that the subject must have received "significant critical attention". This could be satisfied by a review of his life's work from a reputable newspaper such as the Guardian etc. Again, if something is found, do post it here. I know there are lots of interviews and similar content available online and I'm not saying they can't be used. But they don't constitute the independent coverage needed to firmly establish notability. I also know the bar is lower of WP:AUTHOR but the fact that lots of sources exist does not automatically fulfil any of Thea criteria. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply #3 is what I am going on, I did say weak keep! I read [2] What I thought somewhat interesting was Washington Post picked up on it, not sure what was said as it's behind a paywall [3] I kinda gave up after that!! Govvy (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, first let me say that my above comment was not primarily aimed at you. Rather, it was directed at Brxdxe who does not acknowledge that the subject is a borderline case. Since you and I agree the he is in the neighbourhood of meeting WP:AUHTOR, let's return to the sources. I read source No. 2 and the paywalled No. 3. It emerges from these tha Barou conducted an interview with Sakharov. As for No. 2, I do not see why this makes Barou notable. Yes he conducted an interview but so do many other journalists every day. As for No. 3, you are right in pointing out that the Washington Post picked up on the interview. However, the only coverage of our subject in that article is that he is "a free-lance journalist". The ones who criticises Sakharov were the Soviet newspaper Izvestia. So these two sources, in my view, do not establish notability because they are not significant coverage. I remember we were both involved in an AfD on a football club which I claimed was not notable. It later turned out that the club was notable because they had played in the FA vase. That was a simple fact and I was happy to change my mind. Now, in the present case, I think we do not have comparable evidence that tells us Barou was a major player in establishing the journal Libération. Given that he does seem to fail WP:GNG, that is the only way I can see him being notable with the sources presented so far. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I did a wee bit more research and it looks like you're right in that there are no credible sources that say he played a significant role in the founding of Liberation. I did find an interview where he discusses being an editor for Cause du people though, and how he was friends with Sartre. He did have a big role to play in the publishing of Time for Outrage and this does have - I'd say - sufficient media coverage and sources. There are several newspapers (Le Monde, The New York Times, The Independent, The Nation) that all mention him and his role as the editor/publisher of the manifesto. For me this constitutes as him meeting criterion three of WP:AUTHOR. I mean, I think it's true to say that he 'has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work' and that this work 'won significant critical attention.' I'm new to this, so thanks for pushing me to add more credible sources (the article is a lot more fleshed out now thanks to this conversation.)Brxdxe (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brxdxe, thanks for your work. Would you mind posting the links to the websites you mentioned into this discussion? The best way to do this is to copy the url into single square brackets, like this [4]. It's easier to discuss the merits of the sources when they can all be found in this discussion. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Here: Le Monde [5], The Independent [6], NY Times [7], The Nation [8]. And here's the interview [9], it's on page 260 of this PHD thesis. The New York Times article actually doesn't mention his name directly, just that Time for Outrage was published by a small publishing house owned by a couple - this couple is Barou and Crossman though, as evidenced by the other sources. Brxdxe (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll say what I think about the sources individually: The Independent article is about a book (Indignez vous!) which Barou's firm published. Barou is mentioned briefly as "the joint head of [a] small Montpellier-based publishing house". The New York Times article says a bit more about him, mainly that he is the co-owner of the publishing house Indigène. The Nation gives us an extract from the book. I'm not sure what this tells us about Barou, though, but that may be because I can't access the complete version. Le Monde, again, says that Barou and Crossman are the publishers. In light of this, you are right: he had a role in publishing the notable work Indignez vous!. I'm not sure he should have a stand-alone article given the lack of significant coverage in good sources on him, but I think he definitely merits some form of inclusion in Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your in-put. I get that he isn't the most widely sighted publisher ever, but surely if you remove articles based on this people end up completely forgotten? He is French, and so most of the notable press on him might not be easily accessible. He's also a radical, I don't think fame or notability is a big part of his agenda. I've seen much less fleshed out articles be kept on the site, I really think this one deserves to stay - and that isn't because I wrote it! He meets the criteria, if only just. I'd like to read what others think, although I think debating whether or not he merits his own article at this point is slightly pedantic seeing as he technically meets criterion 3. But that's just my opinion. I had to look him up for a course I'm doing the other week and I couldn't find a shred of information on him at first glance. If this article existed before I made it it would have helped my research. I made him one so that I could help others with theirs. Brxdxe (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my above !vote to merge, which is another form of keep. I agree it's pedantic to continue debating over this. The article will likely be kept in some form now. I think that is all that matters and I won't add any more comments here. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ModussiccandiI've created an article for the publishing house now, here: Indigène éditions (publishing house). Thanks for all the in-put. Brxdxe (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brxdxe, for creating the article. This discussion will formally be closed when an administrator comes by and decides what the outcome of the discussion was. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has 1300+ library holding. --Gazal world (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources available on Google News which can be added to the article to improve it. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 6 November 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.