Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Buissonneau

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Google gives about 700 hits, mostly in French. From the English pages that I looked at, there appear to be multiple people with this name. Was never mentioned in any Wikipedia articles before this one. Delete, unless someone knows about the subject and can add some actual facts and evidence. --Slowking Man 02:51, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * The page has been massively improved. I motion to keep this article. --Slowking Man 20:52, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Your not going to delete this just because he is canadian so he speaks french I will stop you and keep adding it back until you give up.
 * You will never win, as there are thousands of us and one of you. You are violating Wikipedia policy. Also, you are completely misinterpreting my given reasons for deletion: the article is confusing and its subject appears unnotable. --Slowking Man 02:57, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: the anon who posted above just blanked this page. --Slowking Man 03:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * YOu dont know there are one of me there are lots of me I will get my friends to help me if you try to delete this just because he talks French you cant delete it because you dont understand.
 * Delete: Will ban the user, if he makes good on his threat.  Article should be listed on VIP. Geogre 03:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Average Earthman's article. Maintain watch on original author's IP. Geogre 00:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Written in haste: List user on VIP (which has been done).  Delete article for lack of notability and an attack on our good services. Geogre 03:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You cant ban me I will just log off and on again like the last time I got a ban.
 * Delete, but I might change my vote if the anon stops acting like a child and gives us an explanation of why this person is notable enough to be the subject of an article. JamesMLane 03:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Or, I should have said, if someone else does the work that the anon couldn't be bothered to undertake. Change vote to keep.  Nice article, Average Earthman.  JamesMLane 00:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being Canadian and speaking French is not evidence of notability. I may change my vote if someone can present better evidence than the arrogant anon has so far provided. Antandrus 03:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep. Article much improved (thanks, Average Earthman). Antandrus 21:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. anthony (see warning) 03:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, you usually have a logical reason for voting keep, but I don't see any logical reason in this case. Nobody can figure out WHO this person is.  Do you have some insights we don't have?  RickK 23:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's insight. The Yvon Deschamps article says Paul Buissonneau taught Yvon Deschamps how to act. This seems to be true, so I don't see a logical reason to vote delete.  anthony (see warning) 00:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What next if we allow pages on French Canadians?  While you're at it, delete Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien, and Alexandre Despatie.  How'd they ever get in here?!?  &lt;/joke&gt;  Seriously, if he's notable, by all means please post an article that shows it.  - Kbh3rd 03:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep --Ianb 08:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, delete this, it's stupid --Doogee 18:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Gave lessons in what? This article about a non-notable Francophone should go because it is a crap article, not because of any linguistic bias. Delete . Fire Star 20:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote, AE has made the case to keep. Fire Star 14:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete unless significant improvements are possible. The article currently does not give any impression of notability. Average Earthman 22:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Right, I've improved it myself, so I'm now voting keep. Average Earthman 19:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good job, AE. It's always a nice bonus when VfD voters do what the authors do not. Geogre 00:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that we've figured out just WHO this person is, I vote keep. RickK 20:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that YOU'VE figured it out. Anyone who read the article and did the tiniest bit of fact checking already knew who the person was. anthony (see warning) 22:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Which you had done but decided not to share with anyone, right? Because this was a divine test, and we were proving ourselves an inferior species that you still cannot help but be so fascinated with that you cannot leave this page, except to recreated deleted content?
 * Anthony, is it really necessary to be so virulent? The article has been fixed. Listing it on VfD brought it attention and remedial help. It's over. --Slowking Man 02:24, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I've seen the article, and it seems well written and informative to me. Also, a user above noted that it got 700 hits on Google.  Since there seem to be a number of people by this name, we can assume 20-100 hits on the right guy.  That seems a reasonable degree of notability to me.  &bull; &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  03:46, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
 * Keep now, with all compliments to Average Earthman, and none to the anon who originally created it, and chose to spend his time vandalistically removing the VFD notice and trolling this discussion, rather than contributing sensibly. &mdash;Stormie 05:07, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.