Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sébastien et la Mary-Morgane

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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien et la Mary-Morgane[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested prod, the contestor just said "don't do prods, sorry, you'll fall flat on your face if you take it to AFD mark my words...", which I don't think is a very good response. This rather obscure French TV programme does not appear to be notable, there was not an English version produced. The article is also completely unsourced, and the programmed does not have an entry on IMDB. PatGallacher (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small world, I created both Cécile Aubry and Marrakesh too! How bizarre that this links to that article! A quick search in google books indicates it has coverage in multiple reliable publications and I'd imagine coverage in French newspapers of the late 1960s.

Well, you've volunteered for the grilling so you're going to get it.

"The programmed does not have an entry on IMDB" = it is a spin-off of IMDB entry.
"As this was never broadcast in English I question its notability" Shall we put every non-English language TV series, film, play, book, novel etc up for deletion because it has never been written in English? Possibly the most ignorant comment I've ever heard in the history of wikipedia which displays a shockingly biased outlook on the world and other cultures. Being written in English is far from being a decider of what is notable or what isn't!! That's basic common sense.
The article is also completely unsourced? An article on Henry Kissinger could be unsourced. Does that make him non notable. Try looking in google books for starters.
Conclusion? You've not even attempted to try to look for information but have displayed a bias towards this article subject in such a way that you ought to be embarrassed with yourself.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because it was not broadcast on an English-language station is no reason to deny notability.--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to meet notability to me. And I have to agree that not airing in English really isn't grounds for deleting an article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. Even "The Oxford companion to Canadian theatre" makes a reference to it and cast member Jacques Godin (playing role of Jonathan): His television films include L'Ile au trésor (Germany-France-Canada), and Sébastien et la Mary Morgane (France-Canada).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is supposed to have a worldwide view on things. A French film that receives coverage is just as notable as an English films that receives coverage. The problem is finding those sources; a person living in the United States may find it difficult to find sources about a topic in another country because they either can't read the other language or they don't know where to look. Barbed comments aside, Dr. Blofeld has found sources that indicate the show has significance (i.e. the references in "The Oxford companion to Canadian theatre"). Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Before nominating, a quick book search would have shown obvious notability. This is a waste of everyone's time. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —per reasons outlined by Dr. Blofeld. -- Cassianto ^Talk 11:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is this for real?: "...does not appear to be notable, there was not an English version produced." FYI, Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française was quite a major outlet at the time... --Soman (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply OK, I realize that the article has been improved significantly over the past few days, but I would point out that at the time I put it up for AFD it was completely unreferenced, and there has been a "notability" flag on it for a week with no response or attempt to improve the article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect me to have 95,000 articles on my watchlist? I already have around 1050 which is more than I can keep track of as it is. Naturally I wasn't aware of your tagging until you prodded it, and I don't do prods. But I did tell you what would happen if you took it to AFD...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, based on the direction of this AfD, you may want to consider withdrawing your nomination. czar · · 04:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if people want to close it I'm not standing in their way. PatGallacher (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll stay open until (at least) the 19th (a full week) unless you withdraw the nom earlier—your call czar · · 03:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I withdraw the nomination on the grounds that the article has been substantially improved since I nominated it for AFD. However, to reply to Dr Blofeld, there is another side to this coin, if a notability flag has been on an article for a week, and there has been no reply or attempt to improve it, I think it is legitimate to take things a stage further. PatGallacher (talk) 16:56, 17 July 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.