Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Roche


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

François Roche

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per several discussions on the talk page. Subject is WP:NPF, and the few sources that are not self published appear unrelated to subject's notability. As pointed out by, article reads like a CV and source credibility is questionable at best. Babegriev (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babegriev (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

- A more than 15 years ago wiki page requested for Deletion. Meaning some people woke up on the situation. After checking the argue, it seems a Portrait was modified from Francois Roche LGBT avatar to francois Roche LGBT lecture at Bangkok Art Biennale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K15mXrtybAw&t=322s) which has been immediately removed by Babegriev for reasons which are not clear. Do we face a kind of Homophobia, or LGBT Phobia as somebody complained. Perhaps not. So after a kind of words with Babegriev which could be understood as a reaction against this gender discrimination, the reaction of Babegriev was to request a deletion. With all respect with wikipedia contributors, it seems we are facing an undergraduate immature reaction. Are the People doing legal studies able to censure or react strangely with gender claiming in artistic posture? Yes, obviously, everybody is free in Massachussets of his/her own moral commitments. Nevertheless is this kind of ambiguous reaction (i don t say discrimination) a plausible and respectable attitude for a wikipedia contributor. This is a question to ask at the top decision-making levels. This case is, in fact, more the case of Babegriev's possible overridding than Francois Roche himself. But as a young contributor, we can give him this right to make personnal mistakes. To repeat it would be, on the other hand, a reason for exclusion.
 * In re the unsigned comment above, while this article is not new, it is part of the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia (e.g. WP:CCC) that articles which do not meet the notability guidelines be brought up for discussion on AfD, regardless of their tenure on the encyclopedia (in this particular case ~11 years, created on 23 March 2010). I feel obliged to address the fact that I had nominated this article after reviewing the several discussions on the talk page regarding notability, and entirely irrespective of Roche's LGBTQ identity. I was actually surprised that the page did not have any link to the WikiProject LGBT portal, nor was it associated at all with the project, provided how important identity is to the article's subject. Regardless, as pointed out in my original submission, and by other contributors on the Roche talk page, Roche does not seem to meet the WP:BASIC notability criteria provided the number of reliable sources included in the article. I would be more than happy to address or discuss any additional concerns related to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding article deletion and/or notability, provided that they are the basis for this AfD. As a matter of full disclosure, if the above contribution was left by the same contributor(s) who left and  on my talk page, I will ask that discourse remain civil for the sake of the due process which this article and this discussion deserve. Babegriev (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

-It s becoming a personnal attack, unlegitimated. Babegriev wants and accepts a community of LGBT only in the street for a gay pride...with music and clownery. Is he registered himself as member of the white anerican heterosexual to justify his gender. Again and again immaturity and discrimination seems the way he personnaly attacks this person. Did he read J. Butler or Paul Preciado about the Fugitve gender, in the crack of revendication, in the crack of gender which don t need to claim a clear identity, and blur the belonging. Of course not. We are now facing what seems a white male heterosexual american reacting abusively and involved in wikipedia contribution. On the notability...10 Venices Biennale of Architecture of new-territories with S/he and Francois Roche seems enough. S/he, the transgender of FR is born digitally in 93-99, at a time Babegriev was not even existing. The historical revisionism and discrimination have no place on wikipedia.
 * To the unsigned comment: It is entirely inappropriate for me to respond to any further WP:PA, which is beyond the scope of this AfD. With respect to "10 Venices Biennale", per WP:ARCHITECT, the question would be on the basis of the 4th criterion, specifically 4b, "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." My concern is with the "substantial" portion of this. Looking at this source from the article regarding the 2004 METAMORPH exhibition, the source lists roughly 200 international contributors to the exhibition. Likewise, the 2004 section of the Venice Biennale of Architecture article highlights 12 featured individuals/exhibits at the exhibition, of which neither New Territories, R & Sie, nor Francois Roche was included. Just as a notable film would not be able to become notable without the contributions of countless non-notable contributors (acting extras, technicians, crew members, etc.) so it appears the same case with this exhibition. While Roche's contributions were important in their own right as part of the larger picture of the exhibition's notoriety, they do not constitute a "substantial part" of the Biennale and therefore would fail WP:ARCHITECT. This applies to the other years of contributions at the Venice Biennale as there are no RS to indicate that Roche's contributions were of a substantial nature. As an additional note, after this comment, WP:CRUFT is appearing more evident as both the primary rationale for keeping this article (thus far) and as the basis of the article's contents.Babegriev (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to talk with so much bad faith. For this architect or artist ... just few invitations for your apertizer : 1996 Venise Biennale French Pavillon 40 contributors / 2000 Venise International pavillon Less Aesthetics, More Ethics and French Pavillon (5 contributor) / 2004 Metamorph yes / 2008 Venice International Pavillon 'architecture beyond building" / 2010 venice International pavillon "People meet in architecture" and so on...+ solo exhibition Modern Art Paris + ...+...  / After LGBT discrimination from we assist to a strange degree of bad faith... Could you stop this game Babegriev. Why should i defend this person to some body like you ? Ignorant of architecture and art scene. We should complain officially to Wikipedia for your LGBT white male attitude.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.247.219 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:ADHOM arguments have already been made more than clear, albeit in an inappropriate venue and being beyond the scope of this AfD discussion. To address the provided list, I don't believe it would be controversial to apply WP:ARBITRARY here, provided that the core notability issues pertaining to WP:ARCHITECT (substantial contributions) have remained entirely unaddressed. Babegriev (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A portrait of 15 years ago which has been widely accepted after some controversy is now rejected by somebody who never contributed to art or architecture, any gender case, any intellectual debate. We ask officially to question the impatiality and the maturity of Babegriev, facing his deep motivation, which appears a gender sexism and discrimination, at the origin of this personal cabal...just because he was caught with his hand in the bag, in flagrante delicto of erasing an LGBT portrait at the place of digital avatar. Asking to this architect, artist a proof of LGBT member card ? for a character existing since 1999, 20 years ago. We ask to wikipedia the revocation of Babegriev for inapropriate motivation which are sweating in his demand. The notability is easily proved and became an alibi. Please Babegriev don t take it personnaly, we just condamn your attitude but respect your person.
 * Entirely WP:ADHOM and beyond the scope of this discussion. Babegriev (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to include WP:ARTICLEAGE with respect to the age of content. Whether the article was written today, or is the oldest on Wikipedia, all are subject to review pursuant content guidelines, including WP:N, and deletion per WP:XFD. If we are looking at the same talk page, I am not convinced that a consensus has been reached. Terminated discussion from frustration or staleness do not imply content agreements. However, I would be more than happy to discuss the validity of prior consensuses, if any exist. Babegriev (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus... between a white masculine massachusset heterosexual american and a dike lesbian transgender fugitive.... it s the same between AltRight and Benny Sanders... Impossible desire...of negociation and consensus.... you create a vain battle... i hope you reach another "Plateaux" of consciousness /// sincerely... Top moderators validated this portrait...against people similar than you...You should find the archives. On the side, a real kind advice...don t erase an LGBT portrait again as what you did...Don t ask a yellow star or a pink star to LGBT to prove their belonging. It already happened, and you are deeply touching and walking in the goldwin point. Nevertheless no hate...just sadness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.146.128 (talk • contribs)
 * "You should find the archives." I'm not sure which archives you are referring to. As I mentioned above, I have looked through the talk page for this article and attempted to find any other related discussions and I have yet to find a solid consensus. If you are able to find it, by all means WP:PROVEIT. Moreover, I hope to clarify that I'm not talking about a consensus between you and I specifically, I'm referring to WP:CONSENSUS, a Wikipedia policy and specific term related to how conclusions are drawn on Wikipedia. The specific conversation on the talk page I am referring to is the discussion here, which does not end in a definitive consensus. I will take this opportunity to raise additional WP:NPOV concerns turning up from the discussion Talk:Francois Roche. Notwithstanding the potential issues with WP:SOCKPUPPET, this raises an additional concern for whether this article should be kept on Wikipedia. If NPOV were the only issue, I would argue for draftifying, however, combined with WP:N, WP:DP is likely the most sensible option. Babegriev (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear, you did a political and sexism error. It s now your problem to find the way to avoid too much damage on your own status. We don't have to argue with white caucasian male sexist. You are one of the symptom of America, it is now to you the repair the prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.246.92 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Seems a big huricane in a water glass. It s clear that motivation of Babegriev appears unclear and are directly motivated to create a prejudice, a witch hunt requesting to the portrait to be declared as LGBT, with a Pink triangle (not star). Why Babegriev could use an kind of impunity to declare his evident sexism and homophobia seems to be the main point of a dispute between those two people. The performative cynicism is illusionary dead with the Trump rejection. The flame is still surviving in USA and what is more surprising within wikipedia contributor. To erase a LGBT portrait is effectivelly in the time of now a direct discrimination, even an offense. It s time to close this controversy and erase this exchange of delation...for the moral salvation and quietness of Babegriev.
 * The entirely speculative (and, less importantly, inaccurate) assumptions of my intentions with this AFD and personal moral character are completely immaterial to this discussion. I have referenced several deletion-related policies and guidelines above for the sake of argument, none of which have been refuted to the extent which those policies are employed. Instead, the same WP:ADHOM arguments have been reiterated ad nauseum. The argument that an article should be kept on the basis of a nominator's personal character (assumed or otherwise) is grossly fallacious. Babegriev (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC) - (Signature added after post on 02:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

*Keep and complain a request of official arbitration as been launched for sexism and homophobia to wikipedia. It is not innocent that the portrait lgbt has been erased today on wikicommon, a portrait which was existing since 10 years. The personnal attack of Babegriev on the lgbt aspect of the character requesting his-her card member or pink triangle should not be tolerated on wikipedia. The notability is high and not the reason of this request of delation. If we check history this portrait has been already protected by arbitration in 2014, for the same hidden reason. For usa promotion>> he was the editor of LOG#25 https://www.amazon.com/Log-25-Francois-Roche/dp/0983649138 among so many thing.

*Keep Some books / LOG25 tinyurl.com/yf9dnskw // Log22 tinyurl.com/yhbscgrt // Log44 tinyurl.com/ydj2t7jj // Monography BiennaleVenise2018 tinyurl.com/yfvwjlk2 // book essay on his work tinyurl.com/yg6jfvnu // Monography bioreboot princeton press tinyurl.com/yk4uv44f // Monography corrupted Biotopes tinyurl.com/yesrkx5e // Article mousse mag NYc tinyurl.com/yg46vscb // Portrait in Liberation news paper tinyurl.com/yzop3lhw // and a second one tinyurl.com/ye9368v5 // listing among minimum 100 others monographies, books, essay, articles in Usa, China, Korea, Japan, and Europe. It tooks 5 mn to find those references. *Main solo exhibitions: MAM paris and 2 book tinyurl.com/yg3s2pmc /// solo Laboratoire http://www.mouvement.net/pdf/TAP_Une_architecture_des_humeurs.pdf /// solo Frac Centre tinyurl.com/yfomphlg ///Why so much intentional bad faith or prosecution on the way this architect or artist should be ignored. We could critic his or her attitude and work, yes and desagree on the permanent provocation or polemic, they, himself and his avatar are creating (in fact visible in this debate). But it does'nt seems a justified motivation for delation, erasing, disqualification. A pending question : Why the portrait of transgender from him or her has been erased from wiki page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.197.55 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This needs input by other people.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC) *Delete fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ARCHITECT and WP:ARTIST despite the walls of text from Captain Haddock above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC) *Delete fails from captain Havrock not Haddock / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Harlock *Delete fails / no problem for WP:ARCHITECT and WP:ARTIST but we could understand that in the normalization of the way to be NOW an artist or an architect...this pseudo trans-gender doesnt fit with white globalized bourgeoisie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealismFiction (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Keep - perhaps TNT and write as a stub  - I'm not sure how to proceed with this, but, the subject is notable. They pass WP:ARTIST. Their work is held in the collection of SFMOMA and their work under their moniker "New-Territories (R&Sie(n) / [eIf/bʌt/c])" has been exhibited at Pompidou, Tate Modern, Barbican, and the Venice Biennial. Their work has been profiled in the New York Times, ARTFORUM, Icon, and this book edited by Etienne Turpin. They have had work published in Log. They are the subject of a book. Despite the treatment of the suspected sock, who I believe may be the assistant to the architect, the subject is notable and merits inclusion in Wikipedia - just not in its current condition article wise. Missvain (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that Roche is French, so I'm sure French and non-English sources will help further establish notability. Missvain (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While retaining concerns relating to substance of contributions to other exhibits, I cannot argue with the RS for inclusion in SFMOMA's permanent collection (which should be added to the article), and WP:BASIC coverage. I agree TNT/stub would be reasonable, or perhaps draftifying until content is encyclopedic. Babegriev (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, they qualify under WP:ARTIST - their work is held in a notable collection and their work has been exhibited at major museums. They qualify. We just need to get the COI editor taken care of! Missvain (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Missvain. Definitely needs some cleanup, though I don't think TNT is the right answer. The article gets a fair amount of traffic, averages a couple hundred hits a month which is better than most obscure artists, so people are definitely looking for this fellow. I threw some cleanup tags on and did some fixing up. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I created a new draft of the article - Draft:François Roche - that I'm working on. Just the basics. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking Alexandermcnabb so he can take a look perhaps and reconsider/reexamine his !vote. {{smiley}] Missvain (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to strike as Missvain has taken the draft under her wing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The article subject - who happened to be the one making all those redacted edits, etc - has reached out to me via email. I explained that Wikipedia is written neutrally, in a boring manner, by volunteers not by article subjects. They expressed displeasure with my draft. I told them - either you get a Wikipedia article and it's written how we write them, or, you don't. At this point, I am going to ask the closing admin to TNT/delete the article in its current state and I'm going to let the draft sit in draft for the time being. Frankly, closing this and deleting the current article might save everyone a touch of grief so we can let things calm down before moving the draft to the mainspace - or not (if the artist comes back saying no I do not want the article then I am fine with letting it with draft forever until someone else comes along and tries to write an article). Does that make sense? Oy vey. Missvain (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also got an email from them with some uhhh...choice words about MissVains version, but I fail to see the issue. I think just replacing the article with that version is fine, I am not as much a fan as TNTing as I think it might fall through the cracks. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this the Drama Llama of which you speak, Missvain??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep? I have to connect this to some part of the world I know, and the extensive visiting professorships would seem to show notability. .  I am as always very strongly opposed to deleting an article on request of the subject unless there's a true BLP problem. In any case, artists are not NPOV interpreters of their own work, though we would include any published statement of their intent.  DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability looks to be there, so the question is what to do about the current version of the article. At this point, I'm torn between just "keep and clean up", kicking the problem to the talk page, where one of many solutions is to replace it with Missvain's version as a starting point, and "replace with Missvain's version as a starting point", which can obviously still be edited and changes proposed on the talk page if the subject has objections to it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it passes notability, the sources are available (internationally), but I’m not sure if draftifying is the best option. I’m more inclined to encourage CE by inviting experts to collaborate. Perhaps requesting help from relative projects would help? -- Atsme 💬 📧 09:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Atsme - We'd just copy and paste my draft over the current version. Draft:François Roche Missvain (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe we can convince User:Babegriev to withdraw their AfD and then we'll just copy and paste my draft over the current version? I have a feeling this AfD is going to sit open forever because another closer won't be willing to deal with it, which is often the case for more complicated things (and sadly I can't close it unless someone withdraws). Missvain (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Could not have foreseen this becoming as complicated as it has. I have no objections to a withdrawal provided the draft replaces the current mainspace article, and page protection is retained thru the current expiration, given the observed COI DE. Thank you (all) for putting in the effort to save this article, even in spite of the colorful contributor conduct. Babegriev (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator -- Per above. NPOV issues addressed in draft; notability established. No need to clog the closer backlog. Babegriev (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.