Deletion of François Asselineau (4th nomination)

Comment: Per  and . Also suggest an '''immediate block''' of the nominator for ive nomination. Special:Contributions/204.167.92.26|204.167.92.26
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:N||WP:DISRUPT)

Comment: 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 , 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 -  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:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FFran%C3%A7ois_Asselineau_%284th_nomination%29&diff=481648862&oldid=481648569  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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: I trust Azurfrog's understanding of the notability guidelines on the English-language wikipedia (see below) : while FA ''definitely'' fails , he appears to meet  +  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIANS||WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: François Asselineau fails  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  + : 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIANS||WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

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 :fr:WP:NPP|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 http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2000/LesEchos/18202-126-ECH.htm?texte=asselineau this one, or http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/1995/LesEchos/16905-114-ECH.htm?texte=asselineau that one, mentioned by {{u|Ravenswing}}) 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 http://teleobs.nouvelobs.com/articles/presidentielle-francois-asselineau-saisit-le-csa-en-pure-perte  "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 , "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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)