Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper Masquelier

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. Nomination withdrawn by the nom voting to keep based on improvments and what appears to be a killer argument Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Masquelier

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

Could not find very many articles about him on the Web. IMDB has a stub that lists no credits. The French Wikipedia article about him has been nominated for deletion, and the discussion there heavily favors deletion. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the fr.wikipedia discussion, which pretty much says it all. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep due to excellent work by MichaelQSchmidt, and noting for the future that foreign language Wikipedias use massively different notability criteria. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Nice People (TV France). -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I'm not convinced that all of the sources identified by MQS are usable, but there are enough of them that are to push this over. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really not the least bit concerned that IMDB does not have much on this person,[1] as A) he appears to have moved away from acting and producing, and B) we all know IMDB is incomplete and considered unreliable. And with respects to Alessandra Napolitano, what they decide to do at fr.Wikipedia is what they do... not what we do... the linked discussion appears to be justavote and devoid of what we would consider policy and guideline based discussion. The google-translated version nomination seems incomplete and whiffs of WP:IDONTLIKE in attitude toward a reality show personality and developer of a website itself the recipient of significant coverage showing notability. So discounting what happens at fr.Wikipedia as immaterial to such discussion at en.Wikipeda, and keeping in mind that en.Wikipedia we apply OUR guidelines and policies and not those of the French, we HERE instead try to determine if we have enough sources available to show a meeting of WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE for his works, even if the sources are non-English, just so long as sources deal with him directly and in some detail. Paris match, Issues 3076-3083 from 2008 speaks about a project involving Dennis Hopper. Kuzeo (September 2010] confirms his part in Nice People, tells us of how he was producer of the first poker show in France, was creator of the tournament when first launched in February 2005, and that he served as Director General of Partouche Interactive until June 2009. He was interviewed by iGame Magazine (September 2010) about PokerXtrem.fr and his role in its creation. Kuzeo (October 2010) also interviewed him about the poker site and his role in its creation and development. Ozap (September 2010) also speaks toward his part in Nice People and his role in creation of PokerXtrem. Numerous other sources also give coverage for his part in the creation of the show and website.(more) And just 4 days ago, Le Figaro (November 2011) offered us more coverage of him in relationship to the poker website and the tournament he created. And from the French article, we also have Le Figaro (June 2009), VSD (April 2004), and Le Parisian (April 2003). How much more coverage does he require to eke over the line from obscurity to being just notable enough for en.Wikipeda through years of in-depth coverage, despite the strange French twists on notability determination and lack of actual discussion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per individual meeting OUR criteria for inclusion as a French entepreneur who has received significant coverage for his works in multiple secondary sources. With respects to the nominator, what the French do at their Wikipedia, does not dictate what we do here at en.Wikipedia. Here, we use OUR policies and guidelines to discern if we have enough sources dealing directly with him to satisfy OUR notability guidelines. Through my research, I believe OUR criteria are met, and so I've been working on the article... fixing new editor Aesv97's lamentable trans-wiki of the article from fr.Wikipedia by fixing citation format, adding additional sources, correcting errors created by the mis-translation to English, removing hyperbole, and making the whole thing properly encyclopedic per OUR manual of style. What began as a poor copy of the French version, has now become neutral, encyclopdic, and properly sourced.[2] God bless the French, but they use a skewed set of guidelines and policies... similar to but not quite the same as ours... and per OUR policies and guidelines, I think the GNG is now shown as being met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find Michael Schmidt's arguments compelling, especially in view of the references he was able to find and the improvements that he has made to the article. Peter Chastain (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (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.