Tungtungan:François Asselineau

I already cleaned-up this article and is notable enough to have it's own article at en:François Asselineau so I propose to keep this article.--Lam-ang^(Makipatang) 20:13, 29 Septiembre 2014 (UTC)

Seen on ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/François Asselineau:

Well, the key-points in the French discussion about deletion are :

• there exist now some secondary sources, and some of them focus on him, such as the article in Marianne (typically), and now On n'est pas couché on France 2 (10 days ago), with these comments;
• however, independant sources of good standing are still rare. So, because François Asselineau has a cyber activist team (about 100 people, headed by Marvin Leroy), spamming and non neutral additions keep coming in large numbers, and even on the French Wikipédia, we fear not to be able to contain it to maintain a balanced article.

So, the current discussion on the French deletion page centers on this : are the existing sources strong enough to resist spamming and non neutral additions?

For the time being, a majority believe the notability of François Asselineau is not enough to take the risk.

--Azurfrog (discuție) 1 octombrie 2014 16:51 (EEST)

86.70.86.153 11:23, 5 Oktubre 2014 (UTC)

Since you invoke a discussion from onother Wikipedia, I'll invoke one from the English Wikipedia (which we mostly rely on guidance of policies that does not exist on our Wikipedia) from the same user you invoked from this discussion on en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination):

Keep: François Asselineau fails en: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 en:WP:GNG + en: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)

Regards.--Lam-ang^(Makipatang) 15:11, 5 Oktubre 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I "voted" Keep on the English WP (and Delete on the French one, where I believe the page will be deleted for the third time, within a week or so) taking into account the very open notability guidelines of the English WP : over there, it is admitted that coverage by primary sources or weak secondary sources saying Asselineau is "totally unknown", or "Asselineau is harassing the media to obtain better coverage", or "Asselineau complains he does not have a page on the French Wikipédia" is enough to consider the subject is notable. Not so on the French WP, on which this is not considered to be proof enough that a politician is notable (sources of national or international standing analysing his ideas and actions are necessary).
Of course, it is up to you in view of your own notability guidelines: just be aware that, on the French WP, the article has been the aim of intense POV pushing and harassment (just as any other media in France), even though Asselineau is generally portrayed as a "totally unknown person" ("Totalement inconnu").
Best regards. --Azurfrog (tungtungan) 22:18, 7 Oktubre 2014 (UTC)

The way you voted on different Wikipedias is exactly the point I was trying to make, that every language version of Wikipedia have different interpretations of what notabilty is and I hope this is respected by users pushing to delete this article with only one interpretion in mind. --Lam-ang^(Makipatang) 14:29, 8 Oktubre 2014 (UTC)

Cross wiki spamming

For information - Regards --Lomita (tungtungan) 19:35, 14 Oktubre 2014 (UTC)

Please read the first line of this discussion.--Lam-ang^(Makipatang) 19:44, 14 Oktubre 2014 (UTC)