Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Lagassé


 * 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   no consensus. A borderline case - multiple reliable sources APPEAR to exist. No consensus either way (non-admin closure) ES  &#38;L  10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger Lagassé

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A minor NDP politician. Ran last in the 1989 leadership race and 5th in BC riding in the last federal election. The article has been largely written by User:Rlagasse, an obvious conflict of interest. No other notable features. Recommend Redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election. Suttungr (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom. Ref WP:POLITICIAN #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say keep. The article is undoubtedly in need of revision, but Lagassé did receive extensive media coverage when he ran for the federal NDP leadership, so many years ago. CJCurrie (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If press coverage during an election were the criteria, every political candidate would be considered notable. That's why we created special rules for politicians. See WP:POLITICIAN #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed WP:POLITICIAN, and it's my belief that Lagassé fulfills the criterion of having received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I agree that simply receiving "press coverage" isn't sufficient grounds for notability; this particular coverage, however, was both national and extensive (albeit that it's not very well reflected in the current version of the article). CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * National and extensive coverage? Before I voted delete I checked the big commercial databases: Gale, ProQuest, EBSCO, JSTOR - they all came up empty. These databases are quite extensive archiving 10s of thousands of newspapers, journals, magazines etc.. in the US and Canada going back 30 years or more. Happy to be proven wrong of course. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ProQuest (which includes many Canadian papers) gives me 294 hits (292 articles and 2 books) for "Roger Lagasse", while Factiva gives me 111. CJCurrie (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure which ProQuest your searching but I'm still coming up empty. Why not cite some major newspaper articles that you believe are relevant. I will verify by searching on the newspaper website, or submit a request at WikiProject Resource Exchange. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm about to log off for the night, but I'll (probably) be able to add some sources to the article tomorrow. Can I request that people keep an open mind until then? CJCurrie (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Update I've added sources from Factiva now. I recognize that Lagassé was never in the upper echelons of notability, even in 1989, and I grant that this is something of a borderline case ... but I still think he's received enough media coverage to justify retention of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I was able to verify on the Toronto Star website that there are numerous articles from the year 1989. Can't view the articles without a sub but they do show the index. My only comment would be these all seem related to his political campaign which is normal for anyone running for office. I'd really like to see some notability beyond his campaign bids since the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN #3 is that we don't consider notable people who ran for office that did not win. There are some more recent articles there but unable to view what they say in terms of subject matter and depth of coverage of Roger Lagassé. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the article already follows the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN #3 as it stands. Defeated candidates aren't automatically considered notable, but in this case the subject did receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Lagassé was a candidate for a national leadership position and, as such, received coverage in national media outlets over a period of several months. Its true that he didn't receive much in the way of intensive coverage, but I'd argue that such coverage as he did receive was significant (albeit, as I say, that it's close to the borderline in this case). CJCurrie (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why was the coverage "significant"? Read Anne Delong's comment below. It sounds like the coverage was about a horse in the back of the pack who never had a chance of winning. Lots of people run for high office who never have a chance, sometimes they get human interest stories, but it's not significant on its own to warrant an Encyclopedia article, unless the coverage really is intensive. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose there will always be some disagreement as to what constitutes "significant" coverage. I've already noted that the coverage Lagassé received during the leadership contest was national and extensive, but not intensive. Said coverage certainly made him a nationally known figure, albeit only for a short period of time. My view is that this is enough to justify the continued existence of the article (even though, as I've already mentioned, it's a borderline case). CJCurrie (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have access to the Toronto Star back issues. In most of the many articles in 1989 he is just mentioned as an also ran candidate. At most there is a sentence or two here and there.  However, because there are so many articles about the candidates, the paper does confirm many of the facts in the article: That he was a fringe candidate, a school teacher, was the only bilingual candidate, had never held office, had some regional support but no real chance of winning, objected to a debate being held in a luxury hotel, complained about his fellow candidates' "Tory bashing", showed up to a debate in his van and asked if anyone could put him up for the night, and received 53 votes at the leadership convention. There are two other major newspapers in Toronto to which I don't have access. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep By using a proper accent in the search engine, I found a number of references, including THIS and THIS, and someone seems to have written a short book about him HERE.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. These sources are almost worthless. The first is a bare mention, the second is a blog to which anybody may contribute, the third appears to be a vanity press. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC).
 * There are five references in the first book; four are bare mentions, the fifth tells about a vote at the convention to cover his election deposit. The second is an article mostly about him written in a publication with an editor, two publishers and two reporters, and was written by the editor, not a blogger.  A small note in the corner of the book cover reveals that it is largely created from Wikipedia articles, so thumbs down on that source. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep all leadership candidates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?. Delete failed politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2013 (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.