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The result was nomination withdrawn as the article has been substantially improved. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Larose[edit]

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

Biography, which goes only about a millimetre further than "Topic is a person who existed, the end", of an agronomist whose only claim of notability is that he planted a small forest of exclusively local significance. Three of the four "sources" here are primary ones -- a press release from the forest's own management committee, the website of the county in which the forest is located and the website of the local conservation board -- and the only one that represents actual media coverage in a reliable source just namechecks his existence a single time in the process of failing to be about him. Neither the claim of notability, nor the quality of sourcing provided to support it, are enough to warrant permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article sucks first of all, and I don't think it is going to be expanded any more than it currently is. Adding references would just be useless. NikolaiHo 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article' subject * has been referenced in both English and French here: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],* page has been populated and improved, * it is about the origins of a large man planted forest the (Larose Forest) in Canada, i.e (bilingual/ French - English and timberland) at the beginning of the last century. * Also note that local is part of global. --DDupard (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "local is part of global" has nothing to do with anything for our purposes. We don't aspire to be a complete directory of everybody who ever existed at all — people of purely local notability (e.g. school trustees or restaurateurs or local shopkeepers) don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just because they can technically be referenced to local media, if that coverage doesn't demonstrate a reason why their notability and potential readership extends beyond the purely local. This article has seen improvement, and thus now does a better job of demonstrating that his notability does extend beyond the purely local, so I'm withdrawing this nomination accordingly — but the minimum standard that a topic normally has to meet to merit inclusion in Wikipedia is that their notability is more than purely local. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, historian John Bacher, university of Toronto, is a good secondary source (in several publications), who in short defines his significance for french-speaking Ontario-east where he was the first french-speaking governmental agronomist. In the WP-article, it has to be added the connexion between Edmund Zavitz, the OKA university (where he was the first french-speeking agronomist getting his agronomist diplome), the 1921 reforestation act of 1921, which coincides with the first reforestation experiments of Larose, the forestry act of 1927, which brought him to push the united counties to buy enough desert land to fall unter that forestry law ; the [tours he organised in the 30's to convince politicians to invest in better reforestation. And also, his struggle for introducing better seeds and plants to raise yields, his struggle for introducing teaching in french , as well as his involvment in organising farmers in the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, 1929. Concerning his continuing notability, see also New York Forester, 1959, House of commons debates, 1989, Savais-tu que... 150 things to know, John Filliol Talks on the History of, TV5.ca--Havang(nl) (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whaow ! Thanks--DDupard (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article and its referencing have been massively improved since I first nominated it, so I'm withdrawing this. Good job, guys. Barnstars all around. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 12 May 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.