Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination)
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
— User:Azurfrog, 07:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)