- 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 keep. Addressing the issues raised by Bearcat, the matter of deletion on the grounds of lack of sources actually in the article is separate from the matter of notability. It is long established at AFD that notability does not depend on what is actually in the article, but on what can be found in any sources whether cited in the article or not. It is my judgement that participants here have successfully argued that sources conferring notabililty exist. On whether this article should be deleted as a BLP violation I am guided by the requirements of WP:BLPPROD. This requires only one reliable source verifying one statement in the article. It does not require that source to be independent. It is surely unarguable that a political party is a reliable source for who its leader is. To be sure establishing notability requires independent sources but notability has been established. Thus, the article gets past the BLPPROD hurdle. Remaining BLP issues can be dealt with by normal editing. I see no benefit to the encyclopaedia in wiping the history of a subject that has been established as notable. It would be a different matter if the article was littered with BLP violating negative claims, but as about everything in the article is referenced to primary sources it is unlikely the subject is going to find anything objectionable in it. Spinning Spark 15:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Jean-Serge Brisson
- Jean-Serge Brisson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was redirected at a previous AfD and has been recently recreated. A PROD was placed but as I believe the article to be ineligible for PROD, I removed it. Regardless, notability is disputed, so taking this back to AfD. Safiel ( talk) 04:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to what's in the article, there is the book here, and he seems to have been involved in a case regarding bilingual signage that received some level of coverage: Telegram, Epoch Times, Telegram, La Releve, National Post. CBC. L'Etoile, Toronto Sun, L'Express, Huffington Post Canada, Le Trait d'Union, Sudbury Star I think there is probably enough in the news articles to reach GNG. -- j⚛e decker talk 04:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to the book mentioned above, there is also this. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The only real coverage of him is all in regards to the bilingual signage case. This does not make him notable, per
WP:ONEEVENT. If the case itself is significant it would warrant it's own entry, but that does not appear to be the case.
Tchaliburton (
talk) 04:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary,
[1] seems to be a reliable source from a reputable publisher providing signficant coverage of him with respect to the 2004 election. Also
[2],
[3], and a couple news bits that aren't too hard to find. I think that's enough to get past 1E. --
j⚛e decker
talk 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- And I shouldn't have been so lax about policy abbreviations. There are three potentially relevant policies, WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:EVENT. BLP1E does not apply because the subject is not a low-profile individual. BIO1E could apply to someone like this fellow (it doesn't require he be low-profile), but I find that it doesn't apply, since there is more than one signficant event in his biography that we have coverage for. As BIO1E does not actually apply, we don't have to consider refactoring this into an event article and the WP:EVENT rules . -- j⚛e decker talk 02:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary,
[1] seems to be a reliable source from a reputable publisher providing signficant coverage of him with respect to the 2004 election. Also
[2],
[3], and a couple news bits that aren't too hard to find. I think that's enough to get past 1E. --
j⚛e decker
talk 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- A person who has been a leader of a duly registered political party, even a minor one, is considered a potentially valid article topic. However, the resulting article must be
properly sourced — as written, this article relies entirely on
primary sources and fails to cite even one source that can actually confer
notability. The existence of possible sourcing improvements is not sufficient, either — in a
WP:BLP, the sourcing must be present in the article as written, or else the person is not entitled to be anything more than a redirect to the party they led. In addition, the recreator's rationale ("he isn't the party leader anymore and should therefore be reverted back to a standalone article") doesn't wash — a person with an unreferenced or poorly referenced standalone bio can be redirected to the political party if they ever led it at any time in history, and does not have to be the current leader to merit that treatment. Accordingly, I'd be prepared to revisit this if some sourcing improvements actually find their way into the article by closure — but if all that happens is that the existence of possible sourcing improvements is bruited about here, without any substantive improvement to the article actually happening, then the article must be redirected back to the political party again until somebody is prepared to write and source it properly.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, although I'll leave my statement above with respect to notability. -- j⚛e decker talk 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Brisson is a notable individual in and on his own, and should have his own Wiki page. If there are updates, then add them to the page. DrivingForce3 ( talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Simply asserting that "Brisson is notable because I say he is" isn't how things work on Wikipedia. As the person who wants the article to exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate, via the use of
reliable sources, that he actually passes our
notability rules for politicians — and an article cannot be kept if you do not do so adequately.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are ample references above demonstrating his notability. This is beyond "because I say so." Why would I take the time to update an article you're threatening to delete? DrivingForce3 ( talk) 14:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Simply asserting that "Brisson is notable because I say he is" isn't how things work on Wikipedia. As the person who wants the article to exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate, via the use of
reliable sources, that he actually passes our
notability rules for politicians — and an article cannot be kept if you do not do so adequately.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. There is no significant coverage of him. The bilingual signs case is the only thing that has been covered in the media, but that's not enough to confer significance. West Eddy ( talk) 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: This discussion was closed two days ago as a non-admin closure, with the consensus read as "keep" — however, with three keeps, three deletes and a redirect, there is not actually a clear keep consensus established, and thus it can't be non-adminned. Relisting for further discussion.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat ( talk) 23:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bearcat - I closed it as notability was found, The nominator stated "notability is disputed" ... Yet Joe found sources so thus notability was there, So there was a clear consensus, -
- Bearcat - I closed it as notability was found, The nominator stated "notability is disputed" ... Yet Joe found sources so thus notability was there, So there was a clear consensus, -
- 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.
- 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 keep. Addressing the issues raised by Bearcat, the matter of deletion on the grounds of lack of sources actually in the article is separate from the matter of notability. It is long established at AFD that notability does not depend on what is actually in the article, but on what can be found in any sources whether cited in the article or not. It is my judgement that participants here have successfully argued that sources conferring notabililty exist. On whether this article should be deleted as a BLP violation I am guided by the requirements of WP:BLPPROD. This requires only one reliable source verifying one statement in the article. It does not require that source to be independent. It is surely unarguable that a political party is a reliable source for who its leader is. To be sure establishing notability requires independent sources but notability has been established. Thus, the article gets past the BLPPROD hurdle. Remaining BLP issues can be dealt with by normal editing. I see no benefit to the encyclopaedia in wiping the history of a subject that has been established as notable. It would be a different matter if the article was littered with BLP violating negative claims, but as about everything in the article is referenced to primary sources it is unlikely the subject is going to find anything objectionable in it. Spinning Spark 15:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Jean-Serge Brisson
- Jean-Serge Brisson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was redirected at a previous AfD and has been recently recreated. A PROD was placed but as I believe the article to be ineligible for PROD, I removed it. Regardless, notability is disputed, so taking this back to AfD. Safiel ( talk) 04:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to what's in the article, there is the book here, and he seems to have been involved in a case regarding bilingual signage that received some level of coverage: Telegram, Epoch Times, Telegram, La Releve, National Post. CBC. L'Etoile, Toronto Sun, L'Express, Huffington Post Canada, Le Trait d'Union, Sudbury Star I think there is probably enough in the news articles to reach GNG. -- j⚛e decker talk 04:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to the book mentioned above, there is also this. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The only real coverage of him is all in regards to the bilingual signage case. This does not make him notable, per
WP:ONEEVENT. If the case itself is significant it would warrant it's own entry, but that does not appear to be the case.
Tchaliburton (
talk) 04:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary,
[1] seems to be a reliable source from a reputable publisher providing signficant coverage of him with respect to the 2004 election. Also
[2],
[3], and a couple news bits that aren't too hard to find. I think that's enough to get past 1E. --
j⚛e decker
talk 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- And I shouldn't have been so lax about policy abbreviations. There are three potentially relevant policies, WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:EVENT. BLP1E does not apply because the subject is not a low-profile individual. BIO1E could apply to someone like this fellow (it doesn't require he be low-profile), but I find that it doesn't apply, since there is more than one signficant event in his biography that we have coverage for. As BIO1E does not actually apply, we don't have to consider refactoring this into an event article and the WP:EVENT rules . -- j⚛e decker talk 02:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary,
[1] seems to be a reliable source from a reputable publisher providing signficant coverage of him with respect to the 2004 election. Also
[2],
[3], and a couple news bits that aren't too hard to find. I think that's enough to get past 1E. --
j⚛e decker
talk 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- A person who has been a leader of a duly registered political party, even a minor one, is considered a potentially valid article topic. However, the resulting article must be
properly sourced — as written, this article relies entirely on
primary sources and fails to cite even one source that can actually confer
notability. The existence of possible sourcing improvements is not sufficient, either — in a
WP:BLP, the sourcing must be present in the article as written, or else the person is not entitled to be anything more than a redirect to the party they led. In addition, the recreator's rationale ("he isn't the party leader anymore and should therefore be reverted back to a standalone article") doesn't wash — a person with an unreferenced or poorly referenced standalone bio can be redirected to the political party if they ever led it at any time in history, and does not have to be the current leader to merit that treatment. Accordingly, I'd be prepared to revisit this if some sourcing improvements actually find their way into the article by closure — but if all that happens is that the existence of possible sourcing improvements is bruited about here, without any substantive improvement to the article actually happening, then the article must be redirected back to the political party again until somebody is prepared to write and source it properly.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, although I'll leave my statement above with respect to notability. -- j⚛e decker talk 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Brisson is a notable individual in and on his own, and should have his own Wiki page. If there are updates, then add them to the page. DrivingForce3 ( talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Simply asserting that "Brisson is notable because I say he is" isn't how things work on Wikipedia. As the person who wants the article to exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate, via the use of
reliable sources, that he actually passes our
notability rules for politicians — and an article cannot be kept if you do not do so adequately.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are ample references above demonstrating his notability. This is beyond "because I say so." Why would I take the time to update an article you're threatening to delete? DrivingForce3 ( talk) 14:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Simply asserting that "Brisson is notable because I say he is" isn't how things work on Wikipedia. As the person who wants the article to exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate, via the use of
reliable sources, that he actually passes our
notability rules for politicians — and an article cannot be kept if you do not do so adequately.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. There is no significant coverage of him. The bilingual signs case is the only thing that has been covered in the media, but that's not enough to confer significance. West Eddy ( talk) 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: This discussion was closed two days ago as a non-admin closure, with the consensus read as "keep" — however, with three keeps, three deletes and a redirect, there is not actually a clear keep consensus established, and thus it can't be non-adminned. Relisting for further discussion.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat ( talk) 23:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bearcat - I closed it as notability was found, The nominator stated "notability is disputed" ... Yet Joe found sources so thus notability was there, So there was a clear consensus, -
- Bearcat - I closed it as notability was found, The nominator stated "notability is disputed" ... Yet Joe found sources so thus notability was there, So there was a clear consensus, -
- 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.