Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:44, 13 March 2012

François Asselineau

• Articles for deletion/François Asselineau
• Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination)

François Asselineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unknown to the French general public as a politician and as a civil servant. Please take note that his article has been deleted several times at the French wikipedia and is very likely to be deleted again. Take note that one of his few claims to fame is that he can't manage to have an article at the French wikipedia. This article mentions it and calls him a "totally unknown" politician. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Vanity page. Has not been covered by any major media, is just the subject of some kind of buzz by bloggers who support his candidacy. If he succeeds in being an candidate for the French presidency, things may change, but he probably won't (you need 500 signatures by mayors for that). Oh and please take note that his is not a "malicious" proposal : the French don't have any bias against FA because of his "bad reputation". Actually, he doesn't have a bad reputation, he has no reputation at all, except as someone who floods the internet trying (so far in vain) to promote himself and his party. He is only vaguely notable for not being notable and trying to be. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that, because you're the nominator, it is assumed you recommend Delete. Feel free to add to your rationale, but you don't need to restate the bolded Delete, and doing so can lead to confusion. FYI. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You say Has not been covered by any major media, but sources are from Le Parisien,Le Figaro, Les Echos, Le Monde, Libération...Are they minor media in France? --Lawren00 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I fixed the AFD tag at the article, the formatting here, and moved the debate to the correct spot in sequence. This is the 4th nomination of this article. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it was deleted once, and then recreated. What a mess ! On fr wiki, this article keeps being deleted, and recreated from time to time. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  It was deleted because a French admin user:Coren made abuse of his administrator tools. It was proven by the unanimous overturn ans relist vote here. Do you justify the usage of administrator tool abuse in special case? --Lawren00 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete: Problem with the previous AfDs is that it is one thing to count the number of sources, and quite another to read or listen to them. Go through this interview (dated 23d February 2012!) on Radio Monte Carlo, for instance, and the 'tongue in cheek' questions put to François Asselineau, clearly implying that the interview is taking place only because the interviewer has been 'deluged' by e-mails from Asselineau's fan-club, and with the lead "I don't know you at all, Pierre Asselineau - sorry François Asselineau - nor your party, but maybe you have something to say, for you are a serious man, aren't you?"...
  Indeed, François Asselineau is totally unknown to the general public, being described by Le Parisien as a "ghost candidate". But then, he is a master at creating buzz out of thin air, leading to empty articles or interviews.
  Is that notable enough for en:WP? --Azurfrog (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Your point is that Francois Asselineau has media coverage because he created a "buzz". However, I would like to be explained how the buzz has been lasting 23 years since the first national media mentioned him in 1989 . --Lawren00 (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I am kinda fed up of having to defend the validity of my article every month because French administrator can not live with an article on François Asselineau. Can we stop accepting the nomination for deletion? This is an obvious POV of this group.

--Lawren00 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Most of these "sources" are primary sources ; building an article with this is original research. Schlum (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Primary sources from Le Parisien, Le Figaro, Les Echos, Le Monde, Libération? Do you mean that Francois Asselineau wrote the 20+ articles in these 5 major newspapers? Interesting. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep, oppose French Misplaced Pages control AGAIN? Are you serious? The previous two AfDs ended in Keep and now people from French Misplaced Pages are, yet again, trying to control English Misplaced Pages. We don't care what the status of his article is in French Misplaced Pages. It has NOTHING to do with our rules and policies here. The sources on this subject are quite clear and have been vetted time and again. French Misplaced Pages editors really, really need to stop doing this. Silverseren 16:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

French sysops can live quite well with an article on François Asselineau here. But it just happens they are currently being harassed by supporters of François Asselineau, because of the deadline for the French presidential elections (deadline by March 16th, if I remember properly). And these supporters' best punch is to insist that there is an article dedicated to François Asselineau on the English WP. Without such blatant POV-pushing and daily harassment on fr:WP, no one would care, really.

But, whether you like it or not, this article is being used by Asselineau as a major argument against the French Misplaced Pages, and a significant part of the vaporware is about how incredible it is that there should be an article about him only in English! I said 'harassment', and I mean 'harassment'... Who should be fed up?

Now, notability on French Misplaced Pages requires that "medias of national or international standing" have published articles "dedicated to the subject of the article", on several years. Just because Asselineau has been invited (or has asked to be invited?) with other people to comment on current events, it does not mean he is notable himself.

This is why the sheer number of articles where he may be mentioned is so wholly irrelevant to assess notability, at least on French WP. --Azurfrog (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

All right, so you explained the real reason of your pushing here. Because you are "harassed by supporters of François Asselineau", that I would simply call "vandals", it justifies for you to get your revenge on the English Misplaced Pages and act the same way with these vandals that you are denouncing. Every means are good to justify your point of view? With that kind of logic I do not think you raise the image of French Wikipedian Admins impartiality here. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What's funny is that, for example, this article, mentioned by the article's creator as a proof of Asselineau's notability, describes this politician as an unkwnown ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral Let's see if Mr Asselineau gets his 500 signatures before Friday. If not, I'll vote for deletion. Bouchecl (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for your point of view. Can I have a link to the rule mentioning about this very new politicians notability criteria? It looks like I could not find it. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per my detailed reasoning at the many previous AfDs and DRVs at which French users tried to get this article deleted on various spurious grounds. Also, while I'm doing the thing where you summarise your opinion using words in bold, I need to add surely not this AGAIN and this is not fr.wiki.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I should just add that my participation in this AfD was solicited by User:Lawren00. The closer will see that the message used was appropriately neutral but will no doubt wish to check whether Lawren00 was selectively notifying participants sympathetic to his case.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I did and thank you for giving your point of view. I tried to alert non-French native users (not only you but some others) and it is unfortunate but most of non-French native users, with a certain distance against this debate, voted "keep". I tried also to alert other admin here but it looks like I could not find the right place. If you know where I can request the point of view of users other than those very active on the French wikipedia, please let me know. --Lawren00 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, this is the very first time I vote in an AfD about François Asselineau, whereas User:Lawren00 has been himself voting countless times, and is - for all I know - a vocal supporter of Asselineau, in and out of Misplaced Pages. So I am not convinced your remark ("the many previous AfDs and DRVs at which French users tried to get this article deleted on various spurious grounds") is quite relevant ;-). --Azurfrog (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• My life out of wikipedia has no relevance in your argumentation for deleting the article. Even if you had Harry Potter's Magic wand that could reveal my real identity, let me warn you that I do not want to see my name in Misplaced Pages. If you do put my name in Misplaced Pages, I would have to request administrator to block you. Thank you for respecting Misplaced Pages's rule Template:Pinfo4.
  For the other part of your point, I defend the article I created that you try to delete. That is why whenever you open an article for deletion you have the obligation of informing the author. Does my presence here make sense? --Lawren00 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral I don’t care if en:wiki wants to keep an article about someone whom greater notability is about complaining on fr:wiki. They have their own guideline about political notability ; this guy have proven to be out of fr notabiliy guidline with a large consensus, and all the shown "sources" have been analysed as primary or irrelevant sources ; if en:wiki wants to keep it, knowing these elements, good for them :) Schlum (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete This whole idea of a French plot is ridiculous. I didn't vote the last time, because I guess this is useless. Let me try one more time, with a different angle. We face a bizarre coalition of François Asselineau supporters and genuine users, who can't read French, and have no clue, for that reason, what this is all about. So I let them believe that French Wikipédia has different criteria than English Misplaced Pages for politicians (which is not the case) or that I'm a member of small group of POV pushers with a bias against François Asselineau: the current Article for Deletion on French Misplaced Pages makes it very clear that the great majority of users there are in favor of deletion. What is more, I'm not only a sysop but also a member of the arbitration comitee on French Misplaced Pages (not very likely to be a POV pusher...). Maybe that's simply because we have direct access to the so-called "sources" that FA supporters are giving and can read them for what they are (just try it if you can, you'll see) : not evidence of any notoriety whatsoever. But I'm just saying. --Gede (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I read French fluently, and I'm not an Asselineau supporter. The problem with the line of argument you advance is a deeply ironical one. It's the existence of sources like this (which is, even more ironically, listed in the nomination statement as a reason for deletion): a whole page of text about how non-notable and unremarkable M Asselineau is, how small his impact on French politics has been, and how weird it is that en.wiki has an article about him despite this fact. Another shorter article with a similar theme is here. But by publishing these pieces, these secondary sources, independent of the subject, are in fact establishing Asselineau's notability. On en.wiki, notability is an objectively-measurable criterion based on the existence of multiple independent sources exactly such as the ones I have just linked. Therefore he's notable. QED.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The sources you are choosing to point are indeed interesting (on the similar debate on :fr, I have admitted the second one is among the most interesting and specific to Mr Asselineau among the big list given by Lawren00 - for the first one I am not sure "Numerama" is a reliable source, I have no hint of who writes there). I notice these sources are gently ironical towards Mr Asselineau, and that the results of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ole_Savior and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ole_Savior_(2nd_nomination) were both "delete" ; sources covering this politician with "gentle mockery", as I read in the deletion debates, were not accepted as "sufficient" coverage passing the threshold of WP:GNG. Being gently laughed at is not sufficient to justify of an article. French Tourist (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes... I accept that not all the sources provided are very good. My position is that there only need to be two or three sources to justify a short article, provided those sources are independent secondary sources that pass WP:RS and provided they're genuinely about Asselineau. Whether numerama.com is a reliable source is something you could challenge; this page would be relevant to such a discussion, I think. With regard to the Ole Savior deletion discussions, in fact the first discussion led to no consensus—it's true that the second was a "delete" but I don't think the fact that we deleted that one necessarily means we must delete this.

  Asselineau is an anti-european and a right-winger, and I don't approve of his politics in the least. But I can't condone this nomination. Let's just say that I'm somewhat suspicious about the reasons for wanting to delete his article during what is after all an election campaign.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Numerama, not sure if it is a reliable and notable website? You mean being in top300 of French Internet is not enough? See the alexa rank. --Lawren00 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment What French Misplaced Pages decides to do with their version of the article has nothing to do with us or this version of the article. This is just French Misplaced Pages editors and administrators' trying to control content on other Wikipedias for subjects that they dislike and these actions are appalling. All of you need to stop beating the dead horse, as the prior two AfDs clearly showed that the discussion is good and dead. Silverseren 17:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Well, leave 'em poor horses alone and stop being 'appalled'; let's rather start talking about Misplaced Pages:Canvassing, as I am a wee bit afraid Lawren00 may have warned his pals on a selective basis ;-)... --Azurfrog (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Which pals are you talking about? Name them. Now, let me name your pals coming from the French Misplaced Pages to rule the English Misplaced Pages: Azurfrog (admin), Gede(admin), Jean-Jacques Georges, French Tourist(admin), Schlum, Hatonjan, Boréal(admin), Esprit Fugace(admin), GdGourou(admin) for those who came here already. And the other we can expect in the coming days User:LPLT(admin), User:Udufruduhu(admin), User:Sipahoc, User:Lebob, User:Loreleil, User:Bokken(admin), User:Lomita(admin), User:Sardur(admin), User:Rémih(admin), User:Hégésippe Cormier(admin). --Lawren00 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  It sure has nothing to do with us here, directly speaking. But it shows that a different Misplaced Pages, with very similar criteria for politicians, and users with direct access to the sources has ruled against the inclusion of François Asselineau. That should give us a hint : that they must known what they're doing, and that we don't here. Because of this bizarre coalition of FA's supporters and users who can't read French, and can't juge what this is all about. By the way : can you read French ? (I mean really read). If not, how did you get to your conclusion ? --Gede (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete he seems to have no impact on french politics, so he does not desserve to have a WP article. He's article kinds the WP fr, which seems unacceptable. Hatonjan (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• French Misplaced Pages member. Silverseren 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Am I missing how he DOESN'T meet the standards for inclusion? The article is sourced and he's been mentioned in notable 3rd party sources. Also, constantly relisting an AfD doesn't get an article deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I found no reliable and relevant source, as of now, that would allow to write a verifiable article about his life. Only small tidbits, which doesn't make him notable. Knowing the french appetite for anything related to politics (and do remember that I am not French), any presidential candidate less than utterly unknown would have hundreds of media articles about him, his life and his actions, which is not the case currently. Boréal (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Considering that every delete vote thus far is from a French Misplaced Pages member, I feel like it should be given less weight, considering that there appears to be some personal involvement on their part, per whatever this harassment is the subject is doing toward them (which has nothing to do with subject notability). Also, is there some sort of canvassing going on on French Misplaced Pages? User:Hatonjan's last post was in October. And it seems strange that he would suddenly just know to come here out of the blue. Silverseren 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a poor argument, and you know it. Stick to WP:AGF, please. How many edits on fr.wiki (or on en.wiki for that matter) does it takes to disqualify someone from voting in AfD procedures. I have 3800 edits here, I meet the criterias and the fact that I (or anyone else) also contribute on the French Wiki is not germane to this discussion. Period. Bouchecl (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Except all of you are the ones bringing up French Misplaced Pages's activities as if they matter. Either they do matter or they don't. If they do, then so does any personal involvement with the subject that all of you are dealing with. If they don't, then all the arguments related to French Misplaced Pages above should be deemed irrelevant. Silverseren 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is borderline if your read WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. The main contributor is almost exclusively editing Asselineau and related articles, which also raises issues with regards to WP:COI#Campaigning. This is serious and strictly based on English Wiki rules and procedures. Oh, and by the way, 1) I'm not French 2) it's the first time I vote on this particular article and 3) I'm known as an inclusionnist. Bouchecl (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Canvassing found In the AfD discussion over there on French Misplaced Pages. Silverseren 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, User:Touriste over there said in the discussion, "I think an influx of French users landing and voting Delete without making a new argument against the subject would be very productive." Silverseren 19:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Come on now! It means exactly the opposite! How can you manage any source about François Asselineau if you can't even understand this simple sentence: "un afflux de franchouillards débarquant et postant "Delete" sans apporter de nouvel argument serait très contre-productif", which clearly aims at discouraging any vote here (it just means "any influx of Froggies voting Delete without any new argument would be very counter productive"). --Azurfrog (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• That was my read of the French as well, though one might argue that sending anyone over here to !vote is canvassing, whether or not they make new arguments, and especially if they come from a discussion that leans toward delete (or Keep, for that matter). YMMV. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, my translation software must be acting up. You'd think it would at the very least be able to tell when a word isn't the opposite of itself. But, anyways, that doesn't address the canvassing issue. Silverseren 19:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  This does not seem canvassing to me… It only provides information about similar procedure inter-wikis, like it was done here. This announce does not target user profiles specifically, like Lawren00 did by sending a message to users who supported "keep" in previous AfD requests. Schlum (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Except that every single person, just about, in that discussion on French Misplaced Pages, then came over here. I don't see how that's not canvassing. And I don't condone what Lawren did either. Silverseren 19:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  As you can see, I’m a fr:wiki editor, and did not give a "delete" advice, as I think it’s an en:wiki matter. Btw, I think that how french editors analyze the given "sources" (in their natural language) and guy notability (who is a french politician) may be interesting elements to take in account by en:wiki editors ;) I used to be very active in the "PàS" which are "AfD" equivalent in fr:wiki, and know that what happened in other languages wiki is often taken in account. What happens here can interest some fr:wiki editors for the same reasons. Schlum (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• As I said in the previous AfD, do you think it would be appropriate for us to delete an article here and then go to French Misplaced Pages and try to get it deleted there? It seems like that would be highly inappropriate, as if one is trying to control the content of every other language Misplaced Pages. Silverseren 20:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  The nominator is an active editor in en:wiki, as in fr:wiki ; I think you are mixing up fr:wiki with fr:wiki editors (who can be active in other wikis). I already saw AfD in fr:wiki launched by users more active in another wiki, after it had been deleted in their local wiki, yes, and did not find it inappropriate. Can I remind you that the creator and main contributor / defender of this article is too mostly active in fr:wiki but for this article ? Schlum (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• So we've got Lawren and the nominator, fine, that cancels out, if you want to word it that way. But i'm talking about all the other French Misplaced Pages users voting in this AfD, users like Hatonjan, who hasn't made an edit on English Misplaced Pages for five months and suddenly shows up now thanks to the French Misplaced Pages discussion pointing it out. Silverseren 21:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  "all the other French Misplaced Pages users voting in this AfD" ? I myself can see than most of them are pretty/regularly active in en:wp too… Do you deny them the right to give an advice ? This article in en:wiki was talked about in a french article recently, that was discussed in fr:wiki () ; does the fact that editors that are mostly in fr:wiki, but active in en:wiki too, show interested in the procedure here really astonish you ? You pointed out an exception, and as you can see here, at least two other users tried to discourage same kind of contributions in en:wiki ; hard to see canvassing here IMHO. Schlum (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Canvassing found . Schlum (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rock freaking solid Keep: I would be hardpressed to find many Delete grounds more specious, insulting and - indeed - reprehensible than that there are editors on another Misplaced Pages who find an article's existence here inconvenient. Now perhaps the French Misplaced Pages operates off of different rules, but here on the English Misplaced Pages all notability criteria are subordinate to WP:GNG, which establishes nothing more than that a subject has been discussed in significant detail in multiple reliable sources. Period. It doesn't matter whether he's a notable politician or not - WP:POLITICIAN is subordinate to the GNG. It doesn't matter whether the reasons for this coverage are silly. It doesn't matter whether or not he's a self-promoter. It doesn't matter whether there's enough biographical information in print to write a credible biography of the man. What matters is this: does he meet the GNG? He does, by quite a comfortable margin. Done bloody deal. Perhaps the editors of the French Misplaced Pages can tend to their own knitting, and we'll tend to ours. (The question of why the existence of this article bothers them so much we'll table to another time and place.) Ravenswing 19:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  But the subject hasn't been discussed in significant detail. All articles quoted mention him in passing, or mention the strangeness of his claim to be a serious candidate, or slightly mock him : none of which is enough to write an article. Theses articles can't be used to write an article about, say, his life, his family, where he studied, his political career, or his ideas - he's a politician, and I can't even find his political program from these articles. The very vehemence of you "keep" I find a little unsettling : fr.wp follows the same notability criteria as en.wp, the discussion there is open and full of arguments, and you just dismiss all of that with "those delete grounds are specious and insulting". You want to keep this article ? Be my guest. But it won't make him meet the GNG - not if you can read French and understand how flimsy his claim to notability is. We weighted every source against "significant coverage, reliable sources" : it doesn't pass with flying colors as you seem to think. It's merely an Internet buzz. Esprit Fugace (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  Reply: Perhaps you could benefit from - especially looking at your edit history - some experience in what consensus on the English Misplaced Pages recognizes as "reliable sources" and "significant detail." I find, for instance, that these citations from Les Échos, all three cited in the article, qualify as reliable sources and discuss the subject in significant detail as WP:GNG defines it. The Numerama edit is a feature article on the subject, and that qualifies as a reliable source which discusses the subject in significant detail.

  Would these qualify under the guidelines in place on the French Misplaced Pages? I would not for an instant dream of surfing on over, having no experience with the same, and telling the editors there how their notability guidelines work. I think we should expect the same courtesy in return. Ravenswing 00:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There is something seriously unhealthy in the arguments of seren above (and only his, I understand very well and respect the position of other editors here, like S Marshall or Ravenswing who underline they have had a look at the sources and find them "significant" enough). Seren, as concerns his position, seems to make the straw man fallacy that French wikipedia users are here in quest of power on english speaking Misplaced Pages, a kind of colonial war. This is obviously wrong and does not help to keep a good working atmosphere here ; we are not here to speak of cross-wiki power but to open and discuss sources to judge if WP:GNG is met or not. I have decided to make this observation when seeing his last absurd comment ("do you think it would be appropriate for us to delete an article here and then go to French Misplaced Pages and try to get it deleted there?" - of course yes it would be appropriate, we sometimes receive warnings by foreign wikipedia users about multiwiki spam and we appreciate them). Arguments for deleting based on the possible bad behaviour of Asselineau's friends on some wiki are obviously poor, symmetric arguments for keeping based on the supposed bad behaviour of French wikipedia's users here are as poor : "oppose French Misplaced Pages control" is a void motive for keeping ! French Tourist (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reply: It's no poorer an argument than those made by the nominator, which advance no valid deletion grounds and include that the article has been deleted before on the French Misplaced Pages. Ravenswing 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N. Also suggest an immediate block of the nominator for WP:DISRUPTive nomination. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Unwarranted. I've made my opinions of the nomination clear, but the nom is scarcely a SPA lunging across from the French Misplaced Pages to muddy the waters; he has nearly 5,000 edits, most of them in articlespace, and a strong and varied recent edit history. We don't block people for simple advocacy of a position. Ravenswing 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Delete not enough known political person. The long list of "reference" mentionned above are mainly lists of local polls results ... M Asselineau is mentionned as a participant but not as a major politician. Misplaced Pages in english could not be an annuary of all local persons that declare themself candidate for all election. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 22:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• What? 204.167.92.26 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• They are very clearly not all local poll results. And you are yet another French Wikipedian canvassed to this discussion. Silverseren 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  … Schlum (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is he someone I should be concerned about? He seems to generally edit areas wholly unrelated to France. Silverseren 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  …and to do maintenance work in en:wiki since early 2005… and not only on subjects related to France, or for inter-wiki links. I see that Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith is as maltreated here as in fr Wikipédia. Schlum (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral - I second Schlum about the issue re WP:en guideline on notability and the fact that WP:fr users should not judge based on what happened on WP:fr, but WP:en users should understand that while the existence of this article on WP:en is not an issue for WP:en, it is for WP:fr, that is being harassed by the friends of Mr Asselineau. Another RfD on WP:fr is again reaching the same result, and I suspect the same opposite result will happen here for 3 reasons: (i) whether or not this article exists is not a real issue to WP:en, (ii) lots of pseudo-sources in french, create a myst of notoriety that actually does not exist, but the language issue is here instrumental and finally (iii) natural negative reaction to what is perceived as an external POV (the very vocal friends of Mr Asselineau, such as seren, understand very well they have to play that chord, and it works fine, judging from some comments such as Ravenswing's). Asavaa (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since when am I a "Friend of Mr. Asselineau"? Silverseren 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you and I are both "friends of M Asselineau" today, because we don't want his article deleted.

  Deuxtroy says it well on fr.wiki here. En.wiki has an article about this French politician. An election in France, involving the article subject, gets under way and a user chooses this moment to start the fourth AfD in less than a year about the same person despite the fact that the previous discussions all led to "keep" outcomes... what are we supposed to think?—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I rather hope I'm reading your comments wrong, Asavaa ... are you seriously claiming that my stance on the subject's notability is the product of propaganda? Beyond that, though, in looking over the edit history of the Delete proponents, only the nom, Gdgourou and Azurfrog have any particular record of recent edits to the English Misplaced Pages. The other three are virtual SPAs, whose edits are sporadic at best. What, may I inquire, led them all of a sudden to participate in this AfD? Would you believe it fair to characterize them as the "very vocal enemies of M. Asselineau," out to eliminate him from the public record for base political motives, or would you consider that a gross breach of WP:AGF?

  Strange though it might sound, there are actually editors on the English Misplaced Pages who gauge articles based on black-letter policies and guidelines, and who make their opinions known for no other motive than to build this encyclopedia. Some of them might actually be participating in this AfD. Go figure. Ravenswing 00:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Delete? Why? I'm seeing no rationale here. A well written and notable article about a French official of the City of Paris, and leader of a political party (albeit a small one). So the guy actually wants a WIkipedia article, so what? Far, faaar less significant personalities have articles on this project, no question. This guy is some sort of eurosceptic.. suspect these weird repeated deletion requests are some kind of political thing (wouldn't know, though). As for what goes on on frWiki, that's nobody's concern over here: Misplaced Pages is not a source. -- Director (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know what to think about a lot of the information in this article, but his position as a city councillor is sufficient. It's our practice to keep articles on aldermen/councillors/burghers for major cities, and Paris is one of the world's leading cities. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates