Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Szalowski

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Szalowski[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)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR. As usual, every writer does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test requires some indication of his significance, such as winning major literary awards and/or having enough critical attention paid to his work in newspapers and literary review journals to pass WP:GNG. But this literally just states that he exists, and references that existence exclusively to his "our authors" profile on the directly affiliated website of his own publisher and a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog -- neither of which are sources that can support notability. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have far more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Ajshul 😀 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is decent coverage in French. I added four sources, including LaPresse, Le Devoir, and Voir, which are good publications here (in Quebec). His books have been subject to independent in-depth reviews. (General statement: pretty much all the coverage is in French, so if you cannot read French it is going to be difficult to assess this one.)--- Possibly (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have now added nine sources. Four of those are for the Cinematheque quebecoise, which is a museum of Quebec cinema. What I am seeing overall is three decent-size independent profiles on him, a significant prize (Archambault prize), a tv episode that he was the subject of (Au Coeur du Cinema Quebecois) and three works that he wrote or directed are in the Cinematheque quebecoise's permanent collection. I am thinking this meets GNG.--- Possibly (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Possibly's sources now demonstrate notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In particular, further discussion can consider new sources that were brought up during the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how the current content of the article fits WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Two books which almost nobody knows about? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 1 April 2021 (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.