Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insoumise bookstore


 * 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. The dleete side has not responded to the sources found. I have deleted the uploaded images of paper coverage as they won't be allowed under our copyright policies. Spartaz Humbug! 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Insoumise bookstore

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability issues: Non-notable place (WP:N) Burhan Ahmed  (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This bookstore is quite visible downtown and has many references to it online. There has been an anarchist bookstore at this location since the late 1970's, so there is a direct continuity with the original project of having an anarchist reading room/ space/ bookstore at that location. signed by article author, 4ravach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ravach (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing any significant coverage, either in reliable sources or unreliable ones. All I can find online is that you can often buy tickets to local events here. That it is on the same location as a previous bookshop is not evidence of notability for this bookshop, but perhaps it could be mentioned on an article about that previous bookshop if that's notable, or an article about anarchism in Montreal if there's enough to make that notable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Searching for this subject isn't helped by there being at least one other of the same name (in Rouen). I can see quite a few ghits, mostly in places normally considered unreliable on Wikipedia, but does one really expect to find sources in whatever is the Canadian equivalent of The Telegraph or The Guardian for this sort of establishment? Peridon (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable place, socially, historically, Location-wise and to City's counter-culture The article was written in English first, but much of the importance and coverage has been in French, over the years. It is Librairie L'Insoumise in French, and it was mentioned (in English) in an article on Anarchism in Canada. The largest newspaper in the city, La Presse, wrote an A section article the day after the bookstore opened on Nov 13, 2004. Le Devoir, the newspaper of record, has also written several articles over the years about the bookstore. (see ledevoir.com and enter "L'Insoumise"). Social notability: The local events that sell tickets here include a Theatre festival that regularly has attracted upwards of 500 persons per night to performances, for a week in May. The city's anarchist bookfair is the largest one in North America, (surpassing San Francisco, but less than London, UK) and that draws 3000-4000 persons, many of whom hear of it through the bookstore; it's a bookfair after all. A significant number of customers are from the USA or Europe, and heard of it from various sources and want to come browse when in Montreal. This is especially the case in the summer. The weekly "cultural/alternative" press has several times mentioned the place in a "Best of Montreal" listing, or one that is aimed at students. Historical notability: The bookstore is in continuity with the previous Alternative bookshop, in the sense that the NPO that owns the building since 1982 is the same as for the Alternative bookshop. So, since the 70s, this has been continuously the location of a specifically political bookstore, where a political community of perhaps a few hundred radicals own a downtown building. This makes this store one of the oldest continuously running anarchist bookstore in the world. Location: St-Laurent blvd is a central artery of the downtown, so the location is prominent. Thousands of persons pass by daily to use subways, to go to university, to work, etc. So to the thousands of persons who have seen the bookstore, but haven't come in, there is at least the possibility now to learn about it online, on Wikipedia.

How is it that far less visible projects (one even located in the same building!) can have a page, and yet this unusual downtown icon is going to be denied a page?!? It seems arbitrary and makes very little sense. I suppose if certain Wikipedia editors want to remove this page, I will want to mention this problem to local news, and to sites that are looked at by bookstore customers. I should mention that I do not work at this bookstore; I am a customer and supporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ravach (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Visibility is not a quality looked for here, and other articles are irrelevant to the one here. If you feel they aren't up to it, please tag them. Please look at the notability policy WP:GNG, the reliable sources policy WP:RS and just in case, WP:COI as well... Peridon (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Thanks to other Wikipedians, I'm learning -for better or worse- a great number of details on how this project works.
 * " received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent " As explained, this bookstore was written about in two mass circulation newspapers, in French, in 2004  [] Le Devoir has a readership of about 350,000, according to figures cited on French Wikipedia [] The article in La Presse, which has a daily circulation in the high hundreds of thousands, does not seem to be online on the newspaper site, but the text exists digitally online, as well as a newspaper clipping. (La Presse, November 14, 2004 Après Alternative, place à l'Insoumise by journalist Émilie Côté ) In book reviews, theatre, cultural and ideas sections and in author readings, The Montreal Mirror (weekly mass circulation newspaper), La Presse and especially Le Devoir has made repeated mentions of the bookstore, giving its address, etc. The mainstream English newspaper, The Gazette, has done far less coverage, but -I think it's fair to say- it is certainly not as in tune with French cultural life in the city, and it is more conservative politically.
 * I would argue that the Quebec equivalent of Indymedia, CMAQ (Centre for Media Alternatives in Quebec) [], is a reliable source, since there are hundreds of contributors and fairly clear, open and detailed publishing criteria, etc, modelled like Indymedias worldwide. There are articles there mentioning the bookstore.
 * As for conflict of interest, I doubt that persons without any interest in this bookstore would know a great deal about it, or would bother to make a contribution about it to Wikipedia. I've added information to pages about Montreal neighbourhoods, because I've either lived there, or like them. I think it both serves the interests of the neighbourhood, and of Wikipedia readers to get better, more detailed information. As for Wikipedia's aims not being trumped by outside aims, referencing this unusual bookstore can't help it be more profitable, since it is non-profit by law and volunteer run. Surely one of Wikipedia's aims must be to have comprehensive and accurate information about wide domains of places and subjects, especially if they are at the margins or undercovered. If contributors have specific experience and knowledge about subjects, how does one distinguish between simple promotion of a subject, vs sharing this information in the hopes of making it available to Wikipedia readers? Since having a Wikipedia page promotes a subject, it isn't clear how to objectively assess COI in this case. In any case, as a long-time user and fan of Wikipedia, I think I hold it in high enough esteem to not use it as a vehicle for unworthy objects. This bookstore is of a modest historical, (counter-)cultural and book-distribution interest in Montreal, and to anarchists generally. Wikipedia has many articles on anarchism, on Montreal, so why not on one more notable place in this city?4ravach (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Being for-profit, non-profit or charity are all one here. Basically, if there isn't independent coverage of a subject in reliable sources, it's a no-go. We get 'articles' from furniture removers, computer repairers and personal trainers (to give three examples that seem to be amongst the commonest). One or two trainers have made it. Otherwise, firms like Pickfords do, but Pripet & Sons (est 1990) of Downby-in-the Swamp (branches in Sunquern and Wetleigh) doesn't. Wikipedia isn't particularly for things 'undercovered' (although there are quite a few articles about porn performers...). It's an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Distinguishing between 'information' and 'promotion' is not always easy. "We offer the best possible to our clients and you are welcome to contact us at..." is speedy deletion material. (Why don't they look at other articles first?) "Hangon. We put this article up to inform people about our company not to promote it." Sure, yes. The cheque's in the post, and of course I love you, darling (oh heck, what IS her name?). This is where we are coming from. It's up to you to show you aren't in one of those (only slightly) exaggerated positions, and that there is notability (by WP standards) to show. You have until about the 7th or 8th on this discussion. If it goes before you get the necessary stuff, you can try again when you do. (Advised is to put it on a subpage of your userpage and seek comments from one or more regular editors.) Peridon (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunately true about Wikipedia I see that it's going to be a no-go and that this lovely project (its English language version at least) has fallen under the control of persons that have appropriated it for agendas contrary to open publishing. I can list and relist the independent, reliable sources, as I did above, but you choose to ignore them. It's too bad if you can't read them in French (why not get French collaborators to confirm their veracity?) If you are wary of any sort of promotion of commercial activity, I agree with you, it's why I didn't see fit to include the bookstore's hours, address, phone, or internet info; it's not the role of Wikipedia to carry these things. The bookstore does not have a primarily commercial mandate, but a cultural-political one: to distribute local and international written materials produced by anarchists and persons of interest to them. If my aim was to promote, I'd of tried putting this article five years ago. A Wikipedia article isn't going to bring new customers, and the bookstore doesn't seem to need any more than it can handle. Maybe you just don't like anarchists, or maybe it's contrary to Islam? I have no clear idea what has motivated this particular negative attention for this very modest entry on an unusual landmark in my city, but since I'm not in your friendly clique, I see it won't pass. I can spread the word, so others don't waste their time. If you were to choose to look at the Ledevoir site, and run it through google translate, for example, you'd understand that this bookstore has been properly covered, and not just as a passing mention for a place to pick up theatre tickets. If people here insist on having a copy of the La Presse article, I will get it to them somehow, scanned or otherwise, but only if it's clear that these are considered by persons here as a satisfactory source. I can't provide coverage from the Guardian, New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais, etc... sorry, the bookstore just isn't (and will never be) in such leagues. 4ravach (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What about large bookstores' pages?? To my astonishment, big stores like Chapters, Indigo, Archambault, Walmart have Wikipages with lots of information about them. How is this not promotional? Who's interests are better served with Walmart having a page; Walmart or Wikipedia? 4ravach (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've looked at Le Devoir - it's a brief mention that establishes that in 2004 the shop was there. There is more, but as I'm not a subscriber, I can't get at it. (I'm not signing up at $9.20 per month for the internet version. Sorry.) Walmart - if someone put that up at AfD they'd be laughed off. Some small things do get articles - there's one just been kept at AfD about a bus shelter (the Unst Bus Shelter) on a Scottish island (but which has been reported on in the national press, and even had a Canadian shelter twinned with it). I can't see a clique here - if there is, I'm not in it. Here at Wikipedia AfD one can find biased opinions - which usually get ignored by the closing admin. You will find the regulars willing to help - most of us, anyway. We don't care if you are anarchists or Tea Party, Islamic or shamanistic, or even Martian (but you'd have to produce extra-good evidence there...). We do ask that WP:GNG is complied with in WP:RS (notability in reliable sources). Read those again and have another look on Google. Hard copy and foreign language sources are acceptable so long as they are genuine. (Between us, we can read quite a few languages and some of us have even edited on other language Wikipedias.) I'm too tired (been struggling with a problem in steganography...) to look further tonight, but I will when I get a moment. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Deux poids deux mesures/ Double standard?  Walmart's being here isn't the problem, however, I find it irksome to read that even putting that into question would mean "being laughed off". What it looks like is a sort of property qualification: featherweight places or organisations can be dismissed or scrutinized, heavyweights are accepted as unquestionable reality. Even Walmart was once one guy (Walton) selling his stuff in one store. Aside from this, were I to want to, I could easily find several pages from outfits or groups or places that present themselves untruthfully, or in an unbalanced, self-promotional way, citing heaven-knows sources (self-referential ones). I wouldn't propose that they be removed, though. As someone who's "been around the block" in political things in this city, there are a few fly-by-night operations with less notability that have made it under your radar. I figured that English language wikipedians could get by in other languages or liason with others. "Steganography"? I'm not sure what you're referring to; it's cryptic to me ;-) In any case, I find it exasperating to need to produce detailed apologies. As a new contributor, it's like I'm considered as malicious and poorly-intentioned until proven otherwise. I would like to make contributions to Wikipedia; I've been a regular user for years, I have specific sorts of experience and knowledge (like lots of people) that I could share. I have worked as an editor for a community paper, a freelance journalist (Hour and Mirror) had published dozens of letters in the papers, done translation work, and I'm fully bilingual. That's not bad for a contributor. I will make no pretense of being a Phd in chemistry (my dad can do that ;-), or in plenty of domains that I know very little, or far less than specialists. Sorry to toot my horn, but I'm on the AfD Wiki-hot seat for the faux-pas of contributing a small first article. Gosh, I could have taken a picture of my local Walmart and put it up, instead. haha.69.196.139.87 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh It's cryptic to me too, that's why I was struggling... 8-( You are not being "considered as malicious and poorly-intentioned until proven otherwise" by me, at least. I'm just doing what I often do in these cases - push. The article is well enough constructed, but we have a very brief and rather unhelpful nomination here. OK. Show him he's wrong. Gather references from things you think might be considered unreliable (but not inside ones, blogs or forums - they definitely are unreliable). Slap them down on the table here, and let us see. I get around the UK a lot and I can't recall meeting up with an anarchist bookshop (although the anarchists in a small town near where I live used to have a bookstall on Saturdays in the main shopping road - not selling anarchist material, but ordinary books to raise funds; the definitely not left-wing locals looked at the black flag, said 'Anarchists' to each other, and quite happily bought books just as they did from the Hospice stall and others). It could be notable. BTW - click on the 'remember m' thingy when you log in; this will help to keep your posts under your name. It saves hassle sorting out who said what. Peridon (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Found copies of original press coverage
Hello Peridon, I dug around and found copies of the newspaper clippings from 2004. Also found some coverage in a weekly (Hour magazine) and a student paper at Concordia U (The Link) But these are of the conflict between the group that created the Insoumise bookstore and the previous one, Alternative. I plan on scanning these pages, and I can send them... but to who, where? Please indicate. Yesterday, I emailed both Le Devoir and La Presse. The La Presse email bounced back, so I'd need to find a better email address, and ultimately, I might need to go to the Quebec national archives and library (BANQ) if I wanted to obtain the article that way. With Le Devoir, they'll likely get back, but it takes a few days. I have a paper subscription, but it apparently isn't the same as an online one, or I don't have a pass for online archive access. Far easier right now would be for me to get what I found scanned and send it along. Where can these scans be sent?4ravach (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Search me... An admin who frequents AfD would be better to ask. Someone like User:Athaenara, User:Ron Ritzman, or User:JohnCD for examples - lots more around. Peridon (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Will add references to the article page  I'll get what I have scanned and incorporate it into the article on Insoumise bookshop. I assume there's a way of uploading documents, just like there is for pictures? Otherwise, I'll need to get it up on the blog of the non-profit that owns the building, which I assume they'd accept and appreciate.4ravach (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Press coverage of the bookstore's opening is now added  This is very reliable coverage from mainstream, mass media sources (La Presse, Le Devoir, Hour magazine), and the principle student paper at Concordia University (The Link). Not sure if the formatting is done the most conventionally, but scans were made of newspaper clippings, and uploaded as jpg or pdf files. 4ravach (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The press coverage 4ravach is referring to is apparently contained in File:La Presse Le Devoir nov 04.jpg, File:Concordia Link 14 sept 04.jpg, File:Hour Aug 04.jpg, and File:Hour Aug 04.pdf. 4ravach, you cannot upload scanned images of copyrighted news articles here—that constitutes a copyright violation. To indicate coverage in the press, you just need to cite sources; don't copy them wholesale. —Bkell (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Citing sources/ copyright infringement  I'll remove these newspaper article images soon, and put citations. However, the Sword of Damocles still hangs over this new Wikipedia article, and I assume that my having found these reliable news articles about the bookstore meets the criteria issues that were raised above. After my efforts, I'd like to know that someone won't try to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ravach (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (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.