Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges Groulx


 * 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) sst✈  07:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Georges Groulx

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He starred in only three movies, but none of them are on en.wp. He starred in many TV series and many theatrical plays, but it does not seem they are significant and he probably was in minor roles. Anyway, I'm not sure about deletion, particularly looking at the french article. Almicione (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep If you're not sure about deletion, why did you bring it here? Yes, the French Wikipedia article is extensively referenced, with over 20 cites. He does seem notable. What I believe you should have done, rather than nominate it for deletion, was to tag it with if you're unable or unwilling to improve the article yourself. I've tagged it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I brought it here for a discussion about a possible deletion. I can try to translate the page from the fr.wp (or someone else will do it), but I want to be sure that the article is notable and the work will not be deleted. The number of references is really a sufficient reason to keep it? --Almicione (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:BIO, as well as WP:ARTIST? No, the mere number of references isn't all we calculate, but in this case his coverage seems to span newspaper articles of the day, such as in  Le Samedi and La Patrie; his own listing in the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia; Quebec dailies Le Devoir and La Presse more recently eulogized him as one of the "leading lights" (flambeaux) or as a "pillar" (pilier) of Quebec theatre, respectively; he's received multiple mentions (at the very least) in histories of Quebec theatre; he was a co-founder of a notable Montreal theatre; he's won awards in Quebec and France... I think that if you did wish to expand his article with just some of these cites, you could pretty much guarantee it wouldn't be deleted. Anyway, let the Afd play out. If you wished to start working on the article now, you could. It's up to you. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'll grant that this isn't a very substantive or well-referenced article in its existing state. But the sheer depth and extensive referencing present in the French article makes it plainly evident that this one can be improved significantly — it would absolutely be a fully keepable article if somebody took the time to translate the French one and import the same references (as long as the content of our article is written in English, there is no rule that the references have to be English-language ones.) We don't delete articles just for being in a poor state — if we can find satisfactory evidence that the topic is sourceable and expandable, then the article gets kept regardless of its current quality. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The French Wikipedia article and its many references make it clear that he is notable. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it needs some work, but the actor meets Cindlevet (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2016 (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.