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. I'm on the fence regarding G5, but as the AfD has run its course, and there's a consensus to delete, there's no need to adjudicate on the speedy aspect. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix LaHaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This businessperson biography fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sourcing is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, media WP:INTERVIEWS, unreliable sources (a la Forbes Contributors) and affiliated sources (profiles on his university's website) to synthesize notability that doesn't exist. There's only one source that gets close to WP:SIGCOV (here) and even that is mostly interview-based. The 30-under-30-type awards received do not meet the award test of WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Video games, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedy delete in accordance with WP:G5. This article existed as a many-times-declined (and recently rejected) Draft:Felix LaHaye. After I indef-blocked the creator Isabelle Blake as an undisclosed paid editor, a long-dormant account Captanhook77 suddenly "woke up" the same day and unilaterally copied the draft to article space. This just smells suspicious. If the same person isn't controlling both accounts, it's possibly a group of undisclosed paid editors working together. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no connection to Isabelle Blake, and am not being paid to do this. I am an esports aficionado from Quebec. As we are a small bilingual nation there is not a lot of people in the esports space, and Felix LaHaye has a strong degree of notoriety here, hence my willingness to help create this page.

  The Isabelle Blake article clearly did not meet the criteria, so when I saw it rejected, I decided to create a better article by doing research to find strong sources to support, which I confident I did.

  Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When a draft isn't merely declined but rejected, that means stop, don't go on, look for another subject to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry but this is important to our community.

  Lahaye is one of the very few Quebecers that has achieved this level of success in this industry. Just listen to the interviews and see.

  This is important for us, and he definitely matches the criteria. Maybe you don’t know of him, if you are not French Canadian and that’s perfectly ok, but saying he does not is simply inaccurate. I also personally think asking to write about something else because you don’t like the topic is rather rude and inappropriate and does not seem to respect wikipedias mission and criteria for positive discussion.

  Thanks Captainhook77 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Importance to your community is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What matters is our policies and guidelines for inclusion. This discussion has nothing to do with not liking the topic; the nominator and other participants here are indifferent to the topic, we are concerned about compliance with policies and guidelines. The only person making an WP:ILIKEIT argument is you. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal de Quebec and La Presse are both top 5 newspapers in Quebec, which both created profiles on LaHaye, including in print. Similarly, some of the TV coverage highlighted is on Radio Canada, and TVA, in prime time slots, on the most watched programs in the nation. These are some of the main points supporting notoriety criteria being met.

While other elements are more in the realm of "mentions" those are solely provided to support specific elements of activity, which are frequently conducted under the organizations LaHaye leads.

Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

The article has strong sources that are at the top of reputability in Quebec, from the most read newspapers to prime time television coverage. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't want to do a full source assessment table, but I assume these are the sources Captainhook77 is talking about:
  • Journal de Quebec: a WP:INTERVIEW and thus a primary source.
  • Radio Canada: yet another WP:INTERVIEW
  • TVAPlus: yet another interview

(They mention La Presse but there's no source there in the article.) None of these satisfy the test of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  • Journal de Quebec: is not just an interview. Whilst Felix LaHaye is frequently quoted, the most significant facts about Lahaye himself are given by the journalist, whilst LaHaye comments on the evolution of the industry itself.

Here is the La Presse article that I had originally included, which seems to now be missing. I am happy to re-include it: https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/techno/2023-07-05/vie-numerique/attraper-la-generation-z-dans-son-milieu-naturel.php

I am having a hard time understanding how these high notoriety publications would not meet the independence and notoriety criteria, as they are fact checked by the editors. Whilst self interviews, should not "count" as meeting the criteria, it seems clear that given the scope and notoriety and from the direct responses from the journalists there is no doubt here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhook77 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of this article, like the others, is made up of LaHaye's quotes. That's why it can't be used for notability -- it's primarily him talking about himself, not other people talking about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree.

As someone from Quebec familiar with those programs being a frequent guest and having print features does validate a strong degree of notability. Seeing how they talk about him and to him also a strong indicator in my eyes.

Do these articles validate the facts, that would be a separate debate on whether Lahaye has notoriety for Quebecers. Captainhook77 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia defines notability. If the coverage is primarily about what the subject says, that doesn't count. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:8001:9500:9E4D:D38:E457:5015:34BA If you are @Captainhook77, please log back in and comment under your username. Otherwise, you are violating WP:LOUTSOCK, which is a form of disruptive editing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this. I made that comment indeed. Thanks Captainhook77 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then please listen to the interviews and read the articles. They are not primarily about what he says. They are mostly high notoriety profiles that match the publication’s formats.

I understand that a lot of it is in French, and if you don’t maybe speak French then it is harder to grasp and that’s ok.

But saying it doesn’t match the notoriety is inaccurate.

I don’t understand why would want to remove something when it is clearly well known in Quebec and that there is more than significant evidence to prove it. Captainhook77 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Golden Rule. Interviews do not count toward notability. Being famous or well known in a local region doesn't matter without significant coverage that is independent of the subject. Notability on Wikipedia isn't the same as famous. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Captainhook77, it's not a good sign that you have made no improvements to the article since this discussion was started. You should be listening to the critique and respond by improving the article to address these problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 2 September 2024 (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.