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 delete. Between canvassing and a significant amount of change to the article, this was a tough AfD to close. However, after having examined the article, the purported "sources", and the arguments presented here, I'm forced to agree with Amalthea and DGG. The "sources" in the article are in the main self-published and/or unreliable, and even at that generally mention the subject only in passing (if, that is, they mention the subject at all, which several do not). This along with at least two of the "keeps" here having been canvassed and one more being an SPA (and AfD being a discussion based on strength of argument, not a vote based on strength of numbers) lead to the result being to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Masse[edit]

Bruno Masse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Bruno Massé, an anarchist author, researcher, activist, publisher, musician and lyricist.
I believe that Massé fails the notability guideline for people, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSIC, WP:ACADEMIC. In particular, I find no significant coverage about him, his academic work, research and papers have not "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" that I can find, his books are not "significant or well-known work", neither are his plays, and "The Bloody Band" fails WP:MUSIC.
The article has a high number of references since I discussed notability with the author at Talk:Bruno Masse before, but I'm afraid that they too don't amount to significant coverage by far. The best of those I think is a radio interview (in French) by CHOQ-FM.
He sure is versatile and very active, but at this point fails the inclusion criteria for biographies. Amalthea^Talk 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've already stated my arguments against the deletion of the article on the talk page of the article. Bruno Masse is as significant in Quebec as Jaggi Singh and Norman Nawrocki, and on the international level, comparable to John Zerzan and Fredy Perlman. Quebec has a small population of 7 million and at this scale Masse is one of the notable and significant artists of the province. English Internet coverage might fail to portray him as a popstar, but so much should be expected from an underground artist and renowned scholar. Still, the references there (Government of Quebec Archives, UQAM Research Group, CHOQ.FM, A-Info, etc.) should be more than enough. That is, if the truth is actually what you're looking for - an assumption upon which I have based my arguments. Ultimately, I doubt the administrator who has initiated this proposal will favor reason over authority. Pity he/she doesn't have to prove his/her notability in such matters. I myself have been a researcher at the University of Quebec in Montreal for five years (where I first came in contact with the subject of the article) and, at the University, quoting the Internet is generally considered to be the worse possible sort of reference, especially Wikipedia. I once failed a student because she copied her paper on a Wikipedia article. I realize now the irony that a character grounded and influencial in reality would be discriminated on a virtual forum. It is even contrary to an interview of Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Whales to The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008, that he'd "be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet". But since we're talking about deletion, I'll just end my argument by five glorious, fantastical words: please don't delete this article!
  Lkeryl (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have been working on and writing articles for many Canadian poets and a few authors. Many are only Notable in a Localized area, and this article has improved and I vote Keep. WayneRay (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

• Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources The article seems to rely safely (without original research or other) on the sources, and the sources themselves are of public nature. We are not dealing with a case of self-published publication, so I believe it should remain a part of wikipedia. Maziotis (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears to have been a good faith mistake, but it's worth noting that Lkeryl has canvassed about 20 users with a request to !vote keep at this discussion. They've been left a friendly heads-up that this isn't cricket. Personallly, I have no opinion about the notability of the subject of this article - just wanted to make sure this was on the record, for consideration as appropriate by the closing administrator when the time comes. Mlaffs (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain ([1]). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interest of disclosure, the article's creator actively solicited a keep vote from me on my talk page. I am going to vote keep here, but not because Lkeryl asked me to — I'm voting to keep because the article does contain a number of decent references in reliable sources. Having publications indexed in a national library catalog certainly passes my sniff test, frex. It could probably use a few more references for good measure, I'll admit, but IMO enough valid references are already present to get him over the WP:N hump. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I've learned on the article's talk page that "all of these publications have been admitted to the National Library of Quebec, as required by law". --Amalthea^Talk 00:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Books on this genre are not necessarily likely to be found in many libraries, but there is nothing whatever in WorldCat, which does cover many Canadian libraries. DGG (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, there are enough independent sources referring him and his work.--Sum (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, with the current improvements the article seems to squeak by notability requirements. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems consistent with most WP policies, hope it will improve with better sources but it would be a shame to remove the article. Remember that radical environmentalism is the number one domestic threat in the US, authors on the subject are likely to get more attention in the future. Also the question of scale seems relevent, Canada has 1/10 of the States population, yet the artistic life is very much present. Most authors don't even get any media coverage. As for the sources the french ones seem more relevant, go to online translators if you want to read them. Charlesfournier (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Charlesfournier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Can you give me *one* French source that covers him in detail? Cause I haven't found one, and I have looked pretty hard. --Amalthea^Talk 11:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remember that radical environmentalism is the number one domestic threat in the US Oh, jumping jesus on a pogo stick. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand you haven't found one and I'm sorry. But the sources are there for you to read. They are significant. I understand we disagree on this but there's not much I can do, just have a look. Perhaps if you could cite the french sources in detail and explain how that they don't qualify, that might help foward the debate instead of claiming that they don't cut it, and me replying that they do, etc. I'm sorry I can't be of more assistance. Moliere's tongue sure is a tricky one! Charlesfournier (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'll do that right after I've finished disproving the existance of god. If you happen to find significant coverage of the topic at hand in the meantime, feel very free to enlighten me and add them to the article, it should be a real easy job if "the sources are there".
    And FWIW, he's spelled "Molière". --Amalthea^Talk 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As author of this article I've nothing more to add, I've already stated my arguments and have no more to contribute. I'll let the admin(s) decide on the matter. Cheers! Lkeryl (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (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.