Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Pagnon

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Pagnon[edit]

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

delete as non-notable: meets no standards for notability under either WP:BK, WP:NMUSIC, or WP:BIO. The article is a translation from French Wikipedia which also provides no sources other than the single book published by Pagnon, and two references in private correspondence of Guy Debord. The description of the contents of Pagnon's book is not sourced and appears to be WP:OR. No secondary sources (let alone multiple secondary sources) commenting on Pagnon or his work are otherwise to be found on Google or JSTOR. Pagnon's book has never been published in English. The article is an orphan. Smerus (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I first placed a delete discussion on the page. This was removed by the article's creator (whom I had informed) without comment, after he added a further reference from a letter written by another French critic, a certain Jacques Guigou (on whom there is nothing in English Wikipedia). There remain however no published secondary sources cited, or, apparently, any evidence of the availablity of such sources, so the grounds for my nomination still stand, I believe.--Smerus (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Debord doesn't seem to have had really that good an opinion at all! Still, the very fact that it got his goat puts it over the top of the WP:Academic "above average" notability criterion. From the very stingy Googlebook preview, the book summary seems OK to me. Sparafucil (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That letter by Debord is about another Pagnon's book, which was rejected by Champ Libre. En Évoquant Wagner was published in 1981 and greatly appreciated by Debord (cf. Correspondance, volume 6, page 59). The letter by Debord that you've mentioned was written in 1984, and as I said, it's about a book that was written after En Évoquant Wagner.

Geronimo355 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just as a reminder:

Per (WP:BK), notablility means that

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

The book referred to in this article does not meet a single one of these criteria, so our opinion of other people's opinion on it is neither here nor there.

As regards WP:Academic, one person not liking a book in their private correspondence canot possibly be conceived of as raising that book to the 'above-average' notability. On such a basis, everything published would qualify for a WP article.

But in any case, this article is supposed to be (according to its title), not about the book, but about Francis Pagnon, of whom the sourced evidence only tells us that he committed suicide, and almost nothing else. Nothing that Sparafucile mentions indicates that the author and the book are anything but utterly insignificant.--Smerus (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I ought to have written "he" instead of "it" above: as long as we're agreed that WP:academic is the relevant guideline, how do we apply this looser standard without creating a Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average? Jstore gives me pause since it includes Revue de Musicologie and R. Belge dM; are there other fr: periodicals missing from their index? We ought also to consider whether Pagnon has significance outside of musicology to situationism, in I am not specialized. Sparafucil (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm just not seeing any of the Notability criteria met. This person wrote a book En evoquant Wagner: La musique comme mensonge et comme verite (French Edition) ... but it looks like a very minor book (see criteria list above: it does not meet any of those). The sources currently in the article are trivial: passing mention in the letters of other persons. Where are the major books that mention Pagnon? Where is the major work he wrote? Google Books shows just a handful of trivial mentions. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any basis for an article, via coverage or any other means. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2013 (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.