Talk:Michel Vulpe

Notability tag
This article is almost entirely about a legal case, and only barely (if even that) about the marginally notable individual who brought the lawsuit in the first place. An article about the case, titled for the name of the case, would be more appropriate and more encyclopedic than this. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This person may be "marginally notable" to you, but not to others such as myself, and I am sure many others.Ottawahitech (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then show some real sources to demonstrate his notability properly — because the referencing here is garbage, consisting almost entirely of primary sources and blogs, and extremely little in the way of reliable media sourcing. And still, again, what I said was that it's pretty clear that the case is notable; we often merge and redirect articles about individual people who are involved in notable events, but don't have really strong notability as individuals, to an article about the event instead of the individual. See, frex, how we handle Marc Hall and Henry Cuerrier; just like those articles, almost everything that's actually here is about the legal case rather than being about him. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Star, Bloomberg and cnet are "garbage"? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Every one of those sources is about the case, and every one of them fails to demonstrate Vulpe's notability as an individual — some of them don't even mention his name once, and even the ones that do mention his name mention it only once. Bearcat (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)