Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination)


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

François Asselineau
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 Said~ 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)
 * To take only the first weblink http://www.leparisien.fr/espace-premium/val-de-marne-94/asselineau-candidat-a-la-presidentielle-03-12-2011-1750168.php it is stated that it is local news (Nogent-sur-seine) and it mention just it will present it's candidature and as you can see it's just a short article. Xavier Combelle (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

--Lawren00 (talk) 16:45, 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 Said~ 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)
 * No abuse, at all, IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep : I trust Azurfrog's understanding of the notability guidelines on the English-language wikipedia (see below) : while FA definitely fails WP:POLITICIANS, he appears to meet WP:GNG + WP:BIO because of the sheer weight of sources making passing mentions of him. In short, he has created a buzz out of thin air, which might make him vaguely notable. I have no problem accepting that the criteria may be different from one wiki to another, and, I repeat, I trust Azurfrog's good faith on that. However, I stress the fact that the current article is a ludicrous vanity page and should be severely rewritten. FA, as far as French politics go, is so far an absolute nobody who is mainly notable for not being notable and trying to be on the web. While the article may be acceptable per se, the English Wikipedia can't afford the indignity of having such a ridiculous page about such a character. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:13, 14 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) . After all due consideration, I am changing my vote to Keep:
 * Keep: François Asselineau fails WP:POLITICIANS insofar as being a member of a French Conseil général is nowhere near being a "member of a national, state, or provincial legislature". But the article meets WP:GNG + WP:BIO: while the "significant coverage in reliable sources" consists mainly of primary sources or sources merely mentioning the subject (in some cases to state that he is a perfect unknown), and while "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", this shallow depth of coverage is nevertheless offset by the "multiple independent sources that may be combined to demonstrate notability". --Azurfrog (talk) 11:14, 14 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)
 * He was mentioned as a high-ranking civil servant, which definitely not proves his notability as such, since the article was not about him. He has definitely created a buzz (a mini-buzz, that is) around himself as a politician and as far as French politics go, he is an absolute nobody, which is why his article should be, if not deleted, at least reworked. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for crossing the line to the enlighten side of wikipedia ;) If you think that the article needs a rework on some parts, I welcome you on the talk page of the article to discuss the changes, make a consensus and then proceed the changes. I suggest to not proceed changes (except for spelling and syntax mistakes) that could lead to editorial war without discussing it priory. Until today it had worked like that and it helps to not heat-up the atmosphere. --Lawren00 (talk) 01:35, 15 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia control AGAIN? Are you serious? The previous two AfDs ended in Keep and now people from French Wikipedia are, yet again, trying to control English Wikipedia. We don't care what the status of his article is in French Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia editors really, really need to stop doing this. Silver  seren C 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. If you do put my name in Wikipedia, I would have to request administrator to block you. Thank you for respecting Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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 Articles_for_deletion/Ole_Savior and 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Silver  seren C 17:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, leave 'em poor horses alone and stop being 'appalled'; let's rather start talking about Canvassing, as I am a wee bit afraid 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 Wikipedia to rule the English Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia member. Silver  seren C 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You create your own criteria for the validity. Since when a politician should have influence in the French politics to be valid? Let me know the source of this criterion, I missed it. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:57, 13 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)
 * The article is sourced but most of the sources merely mention the guy and are not centered on him. The few articles by reliable sources which are centered on him describe him... as a little-known politician ! So far, he has made no impact whatsoever on French politics, he is unknown to the French general public, is never mentioned in any opinion polls and we shall know by friday if he succeeds in securing a valid candidacy for the french presidency (this is very unlikely). In general, he utterly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. This is not a nefarious plot by French users campaigning against a political figure. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:24, 13 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)
 * So you mean the current article François Asselineau is stuffed with unverifiable information? Tell me which info into the article is not backed with a source. I am curious. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think that, given the available sources, it is not possible to write an article that would be longuer than a couple of sentences without relying on sources that are non-relevant, biased and/or non-centered on the subject, which makes me think that no article can be written, as of now, on this subject, based on the basic principles of Wikipedia (verifiability, neutral point of view). One of my specialities on Wikipedia is to find information and write articles for subjects that were put in AfD, so they are finally deemed to be acceptable (although I give no credit to such labeling of contributors, that's why I've been called "inclusionnist" several times).  I would not be honestly able to do such for this article, altough I do acknowledge that others might think otherwise.  And I'm still pretty sure that we are in a case were people are pushing to create notability with a Wikipedia article, which is exactly the contrary of what should be done.  Anyway, that this article is kept will not prevent me from sleeping at night. Boréal (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Considering that every delete vote thus far is from a French Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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. Silver  seren C 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia above should be deemed irrelevant. Silver  seren C 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)
 * I can say that I did not see Bouchecl has a part of the French Wikipedia admin group against Francois Asselineau. That is why I did not include in the list of the Azurfrog's pals. However, Silver  seren C is 100% right regarding Boréal and Hatonjan. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why my status as admin on the french wiki has anything to do with my opinion on this article. Or you don't understand what it means to be an admin on Wikipedia (i.e. absolutely no particular power on article content). Seems closer to an ad hominem attack to me than anything else, as I'm really not the "pal" of anyone here. Boréal (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Canvassing found In the AfD discussion over there on French Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 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." Silver  seren C 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 Said~ 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. Silver  seren C 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 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 Wikipedia, then came over here. I don't see how that's not canvassing. And I don't condone what Lawren did either. Silver  seren C 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 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 Wikipedia users voting in this AfD, users like Hatonjan, who hasn't made an edit on English Wikipedia for five months and suddenly shows up now thanks to the French Wikipedia discussion pointing it out. Silver  seren C 21:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "all the other French Wikipedia 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
 * Silver seren C did right to point that link. It is not Touriste who is calling help from his pals but Azurfrog evidence here. Let me translate his sarcastic call It is interesting to see that the main defense for keeping the article was brought by a French native... Then we should not leave him alone over there, poor thing. This explain why so many users from the French wikipedia are coming here to impose French Wikipedia administrators point of view here. --Lawren00 (talk) 04:17, 13 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 Wikipedia who find an article's existence here inconvenient. Now perhaps the French Wikipedia operates off of different rules, but here on the English Wikipedia 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.  Startlingly enough, the nom concedes that he does in this diff:   Perhaps the editors of the French Wikipedia 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.) Beyond anything else, given Nyttend's cogent point that the subject's position as a Parisian city councillor is normally the sort cited as a pass on WP:POLITICIAN, the Council of Paris is the legislative body for the department of Paris, giving Asselineau a clear pass on criterion #1 as a provincial legislator.   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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia?  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)
 * Despite how it looks, I'm actually not here to argue about F.Asselineau : I'm here because I'm hurt by your comment, who heavily implies all sorts of very offensive things about fr.wp. "Specious, insulting, and reprehensible" ? And I'm supposed to take a lesson of courtesy from you ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I imply nothing of the sort about the French Wikipedia; no doubt there are thousands of editors there who recognize that the rest of the world does not operate by their rules.  Ravenswing  10:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take note that several of the French wikipedia contributors are also regular contributors to the English wikipedia (including yours truly), so this is hardly a French invasion. I'd really like to know how you can judge that Asselineau does not fail WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG : IMHO, he does fail them by a very wide margin. He has no influence whatsoever on French politics, no notability among the French general public, has been mentioned as a city councillor in several newspapers articles but has not been the subject of extensive coverage and is in general a complete unknown. What more do you need ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already repeated the links, from reliable sources, which plainly discuss Asselineau in significant detail. Only two are required to pass the GNG; I stopped reviewing links after I had found four.  I have already mentioned that having been a member of a provincial legislature - as the Council of Paris is - is a by-definition pass on criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN.  M. Asselineau's influence on French politics and name recognition among the French general public have nothing to do with notability criteria on the English Wikipedia.  Azurfrog, below, has the honesty to concede that he - and perhaps others - are applying the standards of the French Wikipedia to this AfD.  Perhaps you are making the same mistake, and should consider applying the standards of this Wikipedia to articles and discussions here, or else go to the talk pages of the appropriate guidelines and see if you can change consensus to reflect your own POV.  Ravenswing  10:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly disagree with your referrence to the criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN. The wording there is "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.". Obiously this is a wording by someone from North America, with implicit referrence to US states and Canadian provinces, that is federal entities. The "département de Paris" (indeed the town of Paris under another name in French public law) has nothing to do with such federal entities ; in France only two local assemblies have legislative powers : Congress of New Caledonia and (arguably) Assembly of French Polynesia. Assimilation of the Council of Paris to things like Florida State Legislature or Legislative Assembly of Ontario is absolutely unreasonable and denotes a bad understanding of French public law. French Tourist (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: The words "federal entity" appear nowhere in WP:POLITICIAN, and you cannot credibly proclaim criterion #1 to mean something it does not actually say, going on to claim that since this Council does not meet your personal interpretation it therefore does not qualify. It's to be expected that you'd have a poor understanding of the English Wikipedia's policies, of course, but as I've mentioned elsewhere in this AfD, if you want to change those policies, seeking a consensus for your POV on their talk pages is the proper way to do that.  Ravenswing  11:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: OK if you want to read wordings litterately rather than try to undertand the meaning of sentences, I can modify my reasoning to adapt it. WP:POLITICIAN invites admission of every member of "national, state or provincial legislature.", and council of Paris is not such an assembly, first because it is not a "legislature" (unlike "Florida State Legislature"), and second because Paris, which is both a "commune" and a "département", is neither a nation, a state or a province. I have no reason to ask for any change in en:wp policies, I suggest to follow them, and to follow them litterally. French Tourist (talk) 11:44, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  Ravenswing  20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He completely fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, is largely unknown in his own country and makes no impact whatsoever on French politics. What more do you need ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:17, 13 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)
 * Vote by a non-registered user (i.e. IP address). Plus I don't see how the nomination could be "disruptive" since I am not the only one to have this opinion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:19, 13 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Silver  seren C 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. Silver  seren C 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 Assume good faith is as maltreated here as in fr Wikipédia. Schlum (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really involved in deletion request on EN:WP as i have a lot to do on FR:WP. But I'm very upset by the communication pushing by supporter of M Asselineau. I think you've not really read all mentionned article but in summary M Asselineau is a local politician who declare himself candidate to the French presidential election, one by fifty, but one that offcially don't actually reach the 500 signtaures from french mayors necessary to validate his candidature. Most media journaliste don't know him and the only info found on net are local participation to talk show, results from local election (name+percent), and the more detailled articles indicate that he is unknown or complain to be not listen... the best is BFM radio-tv presentator who declare that he receive a lot of mail-twits-... praying him to invites M Asselineau but as he don't know him, he couldn't prepare any interview. --GdGourou  - °o°  -  Talk to me  09:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * 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"? Silver  seren C 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)
 * That your Google translator is out of order. I did not mention any election. Pointed out thay en:WP criteria differs from fr:WP ones. And suggested that rudeness is not the better way to have open-minded talks. And choose to be deleted for the french page. Without caring how it turns on en:WP. But never made any relationship between this AFD and election. Nor between Keep advices and any talks about "frienship". Please don't turn my words. Or if it is not correct english (sorry but I am not used to write), don't put your words in my mouth. Deuxtroy (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't need Google translate to read French. I didn't say you said that.  I said "Deuxtroy said it well here", and linked to what you said.  Then I added my own commentary afterwards.— S Marshall  T/C 22:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your position is quite interesting, S Marshall: you do not question one minute the motives of the people who created this article for an unknown politician desperatly seeking recognition (if you can read french, this article clearly says that while he tried to use a media authority to receive a mandatory time slot in the media, said authority ruled that his notoriety is zero), you prefer to question the motives of people who decided 4 years ago that he had no notoriety, who are currently examining the case again and are deciding again (on WP:fr) he has no notoriety and is in fact trying to use WP to create notoriety, and who are tired of being harassed on WP:fr with the existence of the WP:en article as a proof of notoriety. This is the only reason people from WP:fr are interested in this article: it is used in the framework of a disruptive campaign on WP:fr. Period. Asavaa (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I accept that the article is creating a problem on fr.wiki. I must admit that I would not personally have created this article; I think there are many more important France-related articles to create and develop.  (We ought to have an article on everyone in the Légion d'honneur, for example.)  But the reason why I'm questioning the motives here is that we're having the same discussion again and I think users may be having trouble getting the message.  Three times now, we've had a full discussion on the matter and found that this article meets en.wiki's criteria for inclusion.  The process being used here has its own link on en.wiki: WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.  We don't allow that.— S Marshall  T/C 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, considering the previous discussions, I certainly wouldn't have listed it again, and I reckon it is a loss of time and a source of frustration for lots of people. The discussion might be interesting, but it is almost impossible to have a reasonnable discussion, so...the only advise I would have is to keep AGF in mind with the WP:fr people coming here and to take into account their frustration ;-) Asavaa (talk) 17:42, 13 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 Wikipedia.  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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Yes, I am exactly saying that the appearance of notability has been created by a very vocal propaganda. The reason why WP:fr users come here (which is probably not a good idea if you do not understand correctly how the local WP works) is that this article is used on WP:fr as an argument (see, he is notable since he has an article on WP:en) in a very tiring and time consuming harassment campaign on WP:fr. People coming here and you are treating as censors are just WP:fr users twho are tired of this campaign, some AGF would help you understanding that. I am not french, and I can assure you this guy is completely unkown. As simple as that. You might regret it and regret the way french media are working, but the stance on WP:fr has always been that we are not there to create notoriety for any would-be politician. His brand new party never had anybody elected (one of his supporters on WP:fr said the party had 1,300 members, not exactly a very large movement) and he himself had only a single minor elected position a long time ago in another party (not within WP:fr's criteria, I dunno here). I did not come here to tell you what to do on Wp:en, I came here to give some information. If you do not like the information, so be it. Asavaa (talk) 06:51, 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: Wikipedia 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)
 * Reply : I am not sure you are right here. I had a look at Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes which reads : City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London. You will notice that this refers to members of the citywide government. In Paris, the relevant mandate would be "adjoint au maire de Paris" (they are presently 37) not "conseiller de Paris" (they are, by law, 163). I have checked how many members they are in the main council of the cities cited in this policy page - I did not easily find the information for Tokyo (their government system seems quite intricate), but if I believe Wikipedia, there are 44 councillors in Toronto, 50 in Chicago and 25 in London. So the importance of being a member of the council of Paris should be relativized. French Tourist (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In this, Azurfrog and French Tourist are correct, but I can see why there is confusion. On en.wiki we are accustomed to thinking of capital cities in a certain way; we think of the huge, teeming American megalopolises, or of London which has a larger population than Scotland. Senior politicians in such a place are figures of major importance. Not so on the continent of Europe, which has a high population but a scattered and dispersed one. European cities are small—the two biggest on the continent are Madrid and Berlin, and if you put them together they're still smaller than London. Paris (despite being deservedly famous for its beauty) is small even for a European capital city. I do not agree that all councillors of Paris are inherently notable, although my position is that this particular one is.— S Marshall T/C 12:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Remarkably enough, very little time has been spent to talk about guidelines, and how François Asselineau fits them, be it the French guidelines (irrelevant here) or the English ones (which should be discussed rather than just brandished). Indeed, contributors mainly active on French WP implicity refer (way too much, quite certainly) to the French guidelines for politicians, that insist on significant press coverage centering primarily on the subject matter: no simple mention (as are many of the articles listed above) is acceptable to prove notability. Likewise, any article that would just be a resume (such as this one, or that one, mentioned by ) will not be considered as "significant coverage", as secondary sources will be expected. Moreover, being an aldermen/councillor/burgher, even of a major city, is not per se enough to qualify. Now, guidelines applicable here focus on "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage": a lot has already been said about Asselineau getting abundant coverage (which is true, even though he may not be the prime subject of many articles). But is he a major political figure? I think not, even locally (indeed, Le Nouvel Observateur, a major French magazine, recently concluded that "his (political) representativeness is nil"). Beyond that, guidelines provide that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", which does seem to apply to him. Which brings us back to what "significant press coverage" should be, as a great many of the above articles insist he is totally unknown and exist only because Asselineau is so vocal about how he is being dealt with unfairly, leading to the general feeling (after reading said articles) that this significant press coverage is about vaporware. According to WP:GNG, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", which probably is the key difference with French guidelines. However, for my part, I could use some extra factual explanations of what a "significant" press coverage should be, and, conversely, what would not be a significant press coverage. Is it just about quantity, provided sources are "reliable and independant"? And some better insight insight into what a "major political figure" really means would be appreciated. --Azurfrog (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant means that there are enough reliable (that you can trust, that are trusted for relating facts) and independent (the publisher should not be directly related to Francois Asselineau or UPR) sources to build a "decent article". All single piece of information in the current article is backed by information sourced from the major French Newspaper. And of these all together makes an article of (18 276 octets), 5 pages. --Lawren00 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, having tried to start a real discussion on how precisely Asselineau fits the guideline, I rather expected a real, serious answer such as the one provided by Ravenswing below, not just the same BS all over again. --Azurfrog (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone is asserting that Asselineau is a "major political figure," which he plainly isn't. The element of WP:POLITICIAN being cited is the one where city councillors of major cities get a pass.  Whether the Council of Paris counts is certainly debatable, which is why I'm going with criterion #1, where members of a provincial legislature - which the Council of Paris os - get a free pass.  As far as "significant" press coverage goes, it's indeed about the length of the piece; a large paragraph, as in the Les Echos cites, has long been considered sufficient.  Beyond that, WP:BIO holds that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." generally taken to mean that a preponderance of short mentions in numerous reliable sources will suffice.  Ravenswing  10:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer, which does help. However, I very much doubt that anyone can consider the Council of Paris as a "provincial legislature"; "Conseils généraux" (since this is what you are referring to) have never been deemed to have the requested degree of independence. Could you explain in some detail the reasons why you believe it can be considered as such, given the centralized nature of the French State? --Azurfrog (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the official deliberative body for a political entity that is legally a province of its nation. Whether it is an independent body, or whether it has genuine authority, is no part of criteria #1.  Every dictatorship and autocracy out there has deliberative and legislative bodies, but we don't disqualify their members on that fact alone.  Ravenswing  11:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on! Could it be that you are mistaking "départements" and "provinces"? On what ground exactly would you say that a "département" qualifies as a "province"? --Azurfrog (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Paris is not a "province" legally. There are only three provinces in France : South Province, North Province and Loyalty Islands Province. Additionally, the words "deliberative" and "legislative" are not synonyms. French Tourist (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but then the funny part is that just conceded that his major rationale for his Keep vote was precisely criterion #1  of WP:POLITICIAN ("I'm going with criterion #1"). So that the more we try to pin down precisely which criterion applies here, and the more it seems to become elusive, or - at the very least - highly debatable. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What the very unfunny part is here is the degree to which our French visitors here are demonstrating deficiencies with either the English language or in comprehending the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. Part and parcel of this was the nom attempting to strike out the vote of an anon IP, when anon IPs are allowed to fully participate in AfDs as in most other areas of the English Wikipedia. Another is this issue.  It is painfully obvious that the language of criteria #1 refers to second-level subnational entities generally, since of course many countries don't use the English words "state" or "province" to designate them.  As such, comments along the lines of how many French subnational entities have the word "Province" in their names are innately WP:CIVIL violations.  That Paris is legally a "department," and that "department" is the word used in France for second-level subnational entities, is not in question.  (I hope.) A third is the propensity of our visitors to put words in people's mouths.  I most certainly did not "concede" (or state, or infer, or anything else along those lines) that my "major rationale" for my Keep vote was WP:POLITICIAN.  It is that the subject satisfies the GNG.  I stated that explicitly, I've stated that more than once, and I am at a complete loss to understand how anyone could fail to recognize that, short of deliberate rhetoric-chopping.  Ravenswing  17:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I take back this "concede", and apologize to have jumped to a general conclusion, from what was in fact just an explanation of how you felt about Conseil de Paris. As regards your statement "that the language of criteria #1 refers to second-level subnational entities", that may be, except that equating a département with a State or Province is an obvious OR, trying to define a French entity on the basis of a wholly different kind of organization: as explained below by French Tourist, a département is not the "second-level subnational entity" in France. --Azurfrog (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And what would be, according to you, the second-level subnational entity in France? National entity being obvious, first-level subnational entity are obviously the "Regions". Aren't departements then de facto the second-level subnational entities in France? Or do you know of any subnational entity in France that would fit either over Regions or between Regions and Departements? I can't think of any personally. 83.202.202.201 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to still disagree on this "province and state" question. I posted further upwards a bona fide interpretation of its meaning, that is federal entities, or at least entities that have some broad autonomy making them reasonably analogous to federal entities (e.g. New-Caledonia in France, or Scotland in the United Kingdom). You explained to me with some harshness that since the word "federal" did not appear in WP:POLITICIAN, I had introduced there my "personal interpretation". I have hence tried to follow your suggestion and to found my reasoning on the precise wording of WP:POLITICIAN. Now you explain to me that, though the expression "second-level subnational entity" did not appear in WP:POLITICIAN this was the meaning intended by its authors. I am sorry to disagree : this is _your_ personal interpretation which is far from obvious. Indeed I am not sure to understand what you mean by "second-level subnational entity" (Google returns to me a number of issues of "second-level sub-national", with a dash between "sub" and "national"). As far as I understand, this expression is mostly used by the FAO GeoNetwork OGC Web Map Server, but I did not manage in a cursory glance to understand what it means and how it applies to France. As far as we have been now, I don't agree (and don't disagree either) with your assertions "It is painfully obvious that the language of criteria #1 refers to second-level subnational entities" and ""department" is the word used in France for second-level subnational entities", I simply don't understand them. What is your definition of a "second level subnational entity" ? French Tourist (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With hindsight, I could have been more constructive and I come back to be (but it will mean being long). You have (at least) two different possible hierarchies between administrative entities ("collectivités locales" in French legalese speak). You can decide that A < B when B has some level of hierarchical control over the decisions taken by the authorities of A ; you can postulate that A < B when the territory of B is broader than the territory of A. In French public law, the first hierarchy is extremely plain : the French Republic is hierarchically superior to any collectivité locale, and there are no hierarchical relations between collectivités locales : regional executives have no control at all on departmental executives, who have no control at all on town executives. If you use "second level" in this meaning, Paris is indeed a second-level subnational entity, but so is Rochefourchat (pop. 1) and it seems unlikely that this is the meaning of WP:POLITICIAN : admitting that the councils of collectivités locales can be considered as legislative (some other non obvious question), every municipal councillor of France, present or past, would be admissible to an article (they are several hundred thousand, probably more than a million if you count together present and past ones). If you use "second level" in the second meaning, I am far from sure that WP:POLITICIAN means that, but anyway it would not apply to Paris since its territory is strictly included in the territory of Île-de-France, which is itself a proper part of the French territory. I hope it clarifies my objection. French Tourist (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing, it would be nice if you would stop talking about "French visitors", as if we came here solely for the pleasure of discussing François "nobody" Asselineau : Azurfrog and myself are regular contributors on the english-language wikipedia, and that is also the case for several of the voters here. And I confirm the fact that all councillors of Paris are not inherently notable - far from it, actually. BTW, should this article be kept - God forbid, for IMHO en wikipedia would really make a fool of itself - it will be pretty easy to verify in the following days/weeks/months, as we are having an election year, that FA has no impact whatsoever on French politics. He is very unlikely to be a valid candidate for the presidency (we shall have the official list next monday) and almost as unlikely to make any impact on the parliamentary elections. Call me naive, but how can someone who is not notable in his own country meet any notability guidelines here ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, your oft-repeated incredulity is getting tendentious. The links to WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO and WP:N are there for you to read.  The standards for notability on Wikipedia are what they are, and hundreds of thousands of editors work with them just fine.  If you disagree with them so strongly, and you lack the time, inclination or ability to sway consensus to your liking, no one compels you to edit here.  Ravenswing  09:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: no relevant source for this article. Hégésippe &#124; ±Θ± 08:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this argument even means. And this is yet another person that was predicted to show up above. Silver  seren C 13:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As Lawren00 request Silver seren to participe to this deletion request here, and all the energy he spend to protect this article, i assume that's some Canvassing here but from both part... By regarding WP:GNG, the subject need not be the main topic of the source material, that's not the case in the source given for not french speaking user, I could translate on request... --GdGourou - °o°  -  Talk to me  15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I warned non-French natives because all the French administrators were forced to come here by Azurfrog (admin) as he is calling his puppies : Gede(admin), Jean-Jacques Georges, French Tourist(admin), Schlum, Hatonjan, Boréal(admin), Esprit Fugace(admin), GdGourou(admin), User:Hégésippe Cormier(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)... Let me repeat the words he used WE SHOULD, he forced other admins and their puppets to come here complaining how Wiki En is bad and how French wikipedia Admins are such superior elite that they can go on any wiki to explain how things have to be done on their point of view. Numerama finally wrote another article about your miserable behaviour that is adding to the list of 50 sources above. You can be very proud of yourself. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "his puppies", "he forced other admins", "their puppets", "how French wikipedia Admins are such superior elite". Please stop trolling. French Tourist (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "I warned non-French natives because all the French administrators were forced to come here by Azurfrog (admin) as he is calling his puppies": what a laugh! But then, Lawren00, why have you forgotten to mention that I warned "my English puppies" even before the French ones, as you can see here. So, as the English editor you must be, being such a censor of French ones (oh! aren't you?), I thus gave you advance warning so you could, yourself and other non-French natives, give your advice on the French AfD. Ain't I a nice guy to all my puppies? --Azurfrog (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Forced ??? Who forced anyone to do anything ? And who is supposed to be whose "puppy" ? Actually, if anything, numerama seems to be making fun of Asselineau's desperate attempts to have a page on the french wikipedia : but the article is quite neutral, so one can hardly say that it denounces a so-called "miserable behaviour". BTW, Lawren00 is becoming quite insulting here, don't you think ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment lighted me up in addition to that one earlier, but it is true that I does not justify such words so I remove them. --Lawren00 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - AfD is not supposed to be about whether one likes or does not like a topic. It is not supposed to be about whether one thinks a page is perfectly written. It is supposed to be about whether a topic is notable under our guidelines, which call for MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, SUBSTANTIAL pieces of PUBLISHED coverage in so-called "RELIABLE SOURCES." This is a clear keep based on that criteria. Check out the footnotes — public figure. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the sources ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read WP:POINT??? This article has already been kept twice. This entire nomination seems to me a POV-driven exercise and is highly disruptive. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

* Comment A recurrent argument by those citing WP:POLITICIAN in favor of keeping the article relates to the fact that Mr. Asselineau is a former member of the Council of Paris, a deliberative body described by and others as a "provincial" legislature. However, as seen on this graphic, General councils of France (department) are a third-level structure in the political hierarchy of France, below the 22 Regional Councils and the National Assembly, but above the 37,000 or so communes. Bouchecl (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jean-Jacques, keep civil : Carritte was active in a previous discussion, and it is not a good idea to treat him as a venusian visitor opening randomly this page. He is putting the debate on a right way, while underscoring that the sources are at the heart of the admissibility decision to take, this is constructive and you should not answer him as you rightly do above to some very uncivil and noisy other contributors. As concerns the heart of the problem, I disagree with the word "substantial" ; this is obvious for some sources (e.g. 18 - only one sentence about Asselineau, to say he will be non-candidate to an election), but it is hard to discuss since the strategy of the article defenders has been to drown us under pointless documents, whose sheer number hides their emptiness. French Tourist (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I apologize if I seemed uncivil, but the whole debate is rather irritating. What I meant is that none of the sources mentioning him establishes that he is a relevant political figure - far from it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that, and I wonder if it's getting through to you that the subject's relevance as a political figure has nothing to do with the pertinent notability criteria on this Wikipedia. None of the sources NEED to establish him as a "relevant political figure." They do not need to treat him respectfully.  A reliable source discussing the subject in "significant detail" qualifies under the GNG even if it categorizes him in the most dismissive terms. Please stick to how the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines operate, however much they may differ from the ways you're used to seeing.  Ravenswing  20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rather a pretty picture, and I'm sure I could come up with a similar one for the United States government, where as in France there are bodies with greater authority than state governments. What's your point?  Ravenswing  20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this reply. This naive picture of French administrative divisions wants to mean that in a naive discourse, French _regions_ (not "departments") are the equivalent of US states. For you what are the US "bodies" which would be analogue to regions ? I can't follow you. French Tourist (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point? The graphic (lifted from Administrative divisions of France) shows that departments are not a second-level of government but at best a third level. Of course, as mentions, it's a naive way of seeing things, since France is a unitary state where regions or departments have no jurisdictions of their own, as stated in fr:Administration territoriale de la France (but not in the English version, interestingly). Oh, and I can't wait for  version of the US division of power between the federal government, something and the states. Bouchecl (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Third level nation wide, but that would be a second-level subnational entity, first-level subnational entity being the Regions. 83.202.202.201 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Even then, considering that French regions "are the equivalent of US states" would really be comparing apples and oranges: it is so different really that drawing conclusions on such biased premises would be tantamount to Original Research. While we are at it, one could just as well claim that in the EU, the political entities best corresponding to US States are those States belonging to the Union, namely France, Germany, Spain, etc. --Azurfrog (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the GNG. Maybe someone could WP:SNOW close this now? No valid deletion rationales have been offered and the discussion is going off-topic. --Pontificalibus (talk)
 * Is it "going off-topic" to stress that having been a member of a Conseil General falls very short of being a member "of a national, state or provincial legislature", and thus fails notability of politicians? As for the "significant coverage", it might meet GNG, but even this is debatable when one goes through the actual content of this coverage.   --Azurfrog (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get too wrapped up in the special (i.e. optional alternative) notability standards for politicians, this is an easy Keep under GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why I ended up changing my opinion to Keep, taking into account the definition given for "significant coverage" by WP:BIO (= shallow occurrences, but many of them). --Azurfrog (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A WP:SNOW closure sounds about right at this point, with sentiment running over 2:1 in favor of keeping the article, and every Delete proponent apparently applying the standards of another Wikipedia to this AfD. You don't see twenty straight Delete voters show up for the most obvious get-rid-of-it-now articles, and that's what it'd take.  Ravenswing  18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's salt Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (5th nomination) while we're at it ;-) .--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No need for overkill, keeping WP:AGF in mind ;-)... This 4th discussion has led to a better understanding of where GNG differed between en:WP and fr:WP (where depth of coverage and significant secondary sources are expected, and mere mentions or résumés, however numerous, never accepted as a proof of notability). Now that this misunterstanding has been clarifed, I don't expect new AfDs will pop up here. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting figure on the french political scene Pierro78 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, since he meets English Wikipedia's political notability criteria. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, not very strong. Yes, I have changed my mind since the 2nd nomination where I had been a vocal supporter of deletion. This evolution is linked to the appearance of new sources, mainly (if not only) an article in the local daily Le Dauphiné Libéré brought to attention by one of the !-voters on the :fr-deletion debate (and not yet hinted here as far as I know). For the first time, I admit that a good quality source brings sufficient coverage on non-trivial activities of Mr Asselineau. I have not changed my mind on the notices in Les Echos about which I was (and still am) on well-informed and mutually understanding disagreement with S Marshall ; plain résumés are not _sufficient_ coverage in my opinion. But in the very last months, substantial articles begin to appear, OK I have always been ready to review my position if sources did spring up ; they did, I follow them. French Tourist (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the falsest things in this debate, after the stupid and lunatic accusations of a crusade to enslave the English-speaking project by :fr sysops, is the assertion according to which admissibility rules are deeply different on :fr and :en. While it is true that both projects have sufficient inclusion criteria which are not the same (e.g. coverage in two national media on a period of several years on :fr, membership of a state or provincial legislature here), this is quite irrelevant since none of this criteria is met, as far as I interpret them. But obiously both Wikipedias follow the same simple rule : anything which is covered by reasonably substantial reliable sources can be kept. While every project has its own jurisprudence and sensibilities, arguments given in a !-vote on :fr -especially those linked on analysis of sources- are relevant for a deletion debate on :en and reciprocately (which does not mean of course that the result of one of these debates should be taken into account on the other Wikipedia - the important things is what arguments are brought, not how they are finally weighted at closure). It is quite ironical that my argument for keeping comes from the :fr debate while some persons here are nearly shouting that we should keep our eyes from this discussion. No, we should not, and I shall insert the link before leaving : fr:Discussion:François Asselineau/Suppression. As it is a !-vote here and the important thing is arguments, reading this lengthy page in French would be useful for closure ; while a number of things said there are obviously irrelevant for use on :en (and even irrelevant for use anywhere, including on fr for some of them :-)), the discussions about sources, about what they really contain and whether they are reliable and substantial enough, are pertinent for a discussion on _any_ wiki aiming at gathering reliable information in an encyclopedia project. French Tourist (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's nothing false at all about the assertion: several of the French admins have admitted outright that the notability standards there are stricter than they are here, and the nom has himself admitted that he had gauged this article by the standards of fr.wikipedia. What IS false is your assertion that anyone has claimed that the French admins should be debarred from this discussion. Wrong: what people have asserted is that they should discuss this subject solely with respect to whether or not he meets the standards of this Wikipedia, and that especially the suggestion as to whether anyone on fr.wikipedia finds the existence of this article inconvenient to their purposes should never have been raised here.  Ravenswing  09:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As I said in one of the past nominations, sources found, he meeting GNG.  D r e a m Focus  19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conserver Appears to have received "significant coverage" by our standards. WP:Notability is not the same as impact, importance, or coverage on other wikis. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2012 (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.