Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Télesphore Saint-Pierre

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The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Télesphore Saint-Pierre[edit]

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

Biography of a journalist, sourced only to an "our writers" PR sketch on the website of a publishing company that holds rights to a book he wrote — thus not an independent source — and citing no reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the book would qualify him for a WP:AUTHOR pass in and of itself. Writers, even dead ones, do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just because their own publishing company provides verification that they exist — it takes media coverage in independent sources to get a writer in here. Delete, unless the referencing can be significantly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was heading towards a Delete opinion until I found the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which I have added as a reference to the article. Presuming that to be a notable selective source, it would seem reasonable to follow their assessment of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that is a much stronger source than the original version contained — so consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kudos thanks to User:AllyD He looks notable to me: [1]. It is important to slow down and search for sourcing when the claim is that the article is about a well-known journalist and author of a century ago. Adding a third bok ot the article, he shows up in news archive searches, as well. And French-Canadiana have more claim to a plge on WP in English than Francophone journalists form France becauuse Canada is bi-lingual. Non French speaking Canadians and American descendants of Canucks are likely to want to know about this old-timer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that while that Google Books search brings up a lot of hits on his name, the majority of them are either passing namechecks or books where he's the author rather than a substantive subject — so while the number of hits suggests potential notability, the substance of them doesn't exactly offer us a ton of usable sources per se. And also, just for the record, my rationale had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he's francophone — although I'm more comfortable speaking and writing in English than French because I was raised in a predominantly English part of Canada rather than in Quebec, I am of French Canadian background myself, so attempting to rectify our undercoverage of Québécois notables who fall through the cracks because of the language gap is one of the things I set as my personal priorities on here. Even so, I can still only WP:BEFORE in resources that I have access to — and French-language media coverage that predates the Google era is still one of the things I don't have an adequate resource for, so even with that goal in mind historical stuff can still sometimes slip past me if the topic hasn't also englished its way into The Globe and Mail. So I'm thankful for the improvement, and am withdrawing the nomination accordingly — but none of this proves that I didn't do any of the necessary priors. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2016 (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.