Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre L. J. Vincent

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 19:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre L. J. Vincent

Non-notable, fails pokemon test. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This page was deleted for some unknown reason, and was recreated by Spinboy. I've restored it to its undeleted version. --Blackcap | talk 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER NOTE: The admin responsible was Snowspinner. Please see WP:ANI#Large scale AfD unlisting for details. --Blackcap | talk 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems notable to me, and what's more important, is fully verified. He's the co-founder of a semi-large Canadian republican organization. I'm curious as to what the pokemon test is, though. --Blackcap | talk 06:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Semi large? It's not that large. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not Canadian, nor do I follow Canadian politics much, but within the republican movement it seems reasonably large/notable, at least enough to warrant inclusion. And what's the pokemon test? --Blackcap | talk 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the claims made in the article are true it's a definite keep. If there are reasons to think his organisation isn't a major Canadian republican body, then please let us know them. The Land 11:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They've been in the news recently, at least the organization, due to the new Governor General of Canada. That being said, they aren't as big an organization as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation for example. They're just a small blip on the Canadian spectrum. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I guess you could categorise them as a major Canadian republican body, in that they seem to be prominent within the very small Canadian republican movement. They do get some google news hits. Pburka 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the legal fight mentioned in the article, due to his being fired from his government job for refusal to take the oath of alligience would make him notable even without the political organization angle. Crypticfirefly 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't like the Pokémon test, I am not sure I would agree that this doesn't pass it. gren グレン 20:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell is the Pokemon test? --Blackcap | talk 21:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The pokemon test is simple. You ask youself 'Is this more or less important than an article on a pokemon character or episode'? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah. Got it. --Blackcap | talk 22:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe this test is highly controversial as many believe that pokemon characters or episodes simply don't belong on Wikipedia, and it is very simplistic, many use it to argue in favour of keeping an article, since the vast majory of stuff on AfD would pass. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yah. My problem is that I think Pikachu is well known than Saint Stephen. However, I think the latter is far more encyclopedic. gren グレン 22:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Crypticfirefly. -- Corvus 19:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Crypticfirefly Being the plaintif and key figure in a major legal test is IMO notabel without more, so how large his orgization is is moot for that purpose -- although it would be nice if sources were cited about the orginaztion and its size and influence. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.