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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Guyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Doesn't establish real notability per WP:BIO. Neither being a mason nor being the ancestor of people would quite qualify. Crystallina 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:HOLE. YechielMan 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh come on! This is a Speedy Keep. WP:HOLE gives the example that there is a difference between a non-notable person and a person whose notability is not adequately demonstrated. He's a 16th century colonist in Quebec so appreciate that he's a tad pre-Internet and all the best sources will be in French. We can expect such a mason to perhaps be notable because he's a colonist. A mason on the Mayflower would likely be more notable than a mason in Europe, non? The first page of hits on Google shows us that Quebec City has a park named after him and the bio describes him as a "master mason of excellent reputation" who worked on notable church (see here You can also blame him for descendants Madonna, Celine Dion and Canada's current Leader of the Opposition Stephane Dion source. Amazing what 60 seconds on Google can do... Plus don't people ever raise these issues on Discussion pages for articles? Canuckle 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Canuckle. I found a fairly detailed story of this guy here. However, someone who cares about this article needs to beef it up to make his notability more obvious. CharacterZero | Speak 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands. The above arguments don't convince me - nor does Canuckle being patronising. This is NOT a Speedy Keep, esp in the light of recent tightening up on genealogical articles. Genealogical websites don't cut much ice, and at the end of the day despite all the surrounding detail the man still seems to be as per nom: a French mason who had a lot of descendants in Canada. The only reason I can see for keeping the article is if there are special standards of notability for people involved in the early days of new colonies, and physically being there and reproducing a lot really is enough. Anyone who wants to save this needs to put in a lot of work quickly. HeartofaDog 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for sounding patronizing. I don't think the genealogy adds much to his notability. That was an attempt at humor. There don't need to be special standards for pioneering colonists. Reliable sources do that for us. The first page of Ghits shows an official City of Quebec site that explains why they think he is notable enough to have a street and a park named after him as recently as 2006. Canuckle 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussion' The link stated is "Family history site by Judith Perrault Delmar"; (A really well done project, by the way). I added it as an external link, but it is of no real authority. I added a link (found there) to a published genealogy in 30 v. and growing, "Our French-Canadian ancestors", but I have not checked it. It's a published source, and would undoubtedly prove a usable one & if it gave refs. to the original data it would be an RS, and the sources there would be further RSs--and would support any article on every last person included. So I suggest thinking about it as "RSs that show notability", which these do not, unless we accept early European settlers as N per se--and then we need to define "early". DGG 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at all. --Whstchy 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has a park in Quebec City named after him. That's notable enough for me. Just because you haven't heard of him and the article needs work, is not reason to delete. --Crunch 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NEW CONTENT ADDED. I've added link and content from the City of Quebec bio that explains why they named a park and a street after him (as recently as 2006) Canuckle 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still no demonstration of notability (Sorry, Canuckle, if I misread your tone!) This is presumably the City of Quebec link and it adds nothing to the question of notability: it just repeats what we already know and is being challenged as adequate - JG emigrated from France, got a land grant, worked as a mason and had descendants - end of.

The street was named after the park, not after JG, and I disagree in any case that having a park named after you (in Quebec or anywhere else) is automatically enough to demonstrate noteworthiness - often it simply refers to early land owners, which is what seems to be the case here. We're back to the question whether being an early colonist and havgin lots of descendants is in itself notable. If it's not, then I still don't agree that there's a case for keeping this article, because no-one has been able to demonstrate that JG did anything else. HeartofaDog 23:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that naming of a street or park in a provincial capital, one of the oldest cities in Canada, does not automatically demonstrate noteworthiness. But it does suggest that officials in that part of the world may think the subject noteworthy. French-Canadian wikipedians must consider him noteworthy as he's on their to-do list for biographies: [1] After the new seigneur, Guyon leads the lists of settlers who arrived in 1634, just three years after the British returned Quebec to the French in a treaty. That voyage increased the fragile population of Quebec from 100 people to 134, which is why the size of his family is so valuable and notable. Sure he's "just" a mason, but the other key settlers are carpenters (such as Marin Boucher and tile makers, the type of people you need to "build" a colony, particularly into virgin territory which is where his land was. He could read and write, too, which sounds mundane but which meant he could serve as a notary, an important role in a new colony. To provide more sources for the article, I've now added links to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canadian Embassy in France and the population study by the Universite de Montreal. (And Inside Entertainment too (eww!) as "close friends" of Madonna say she's thrilled to be related to Camilla Parker-Bowles). Canuckle 07:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep but with a note to improve the article. I will not repeat the arguments above, but it is apperent that the subject was one of the founders of the colony, a vital member of the community, and has been comemorated with the naming of Public places in one of the oldest cities in North america. If that is insuficent to include him, then I fear that their are not too many historical figures who would qualify. I do agree that the writing needs some work. cmacd 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's quickly grown from just 3 sentences. And yes I agree it needs work. If it survives deletion, can we tag it with an expert needed? I'm certainly not one. Canuckle 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename after the park, and rewrite. Otherwise, the article seems like more of a genealogy work than a figure who is notable today. Deet 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Canuckle 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DiscussionThree points to add regarding notability:

1. 1. Did the people of Quebec regard Duyon as a notable pioneer? I've been trying to access the Library and Archives Canada site during this discussion. It finally appears to be fully functioning again. Its Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online offers access to the officialy commissioned biographies. It was established as:

      "a Canadian equivalent of Great Britain's prestigious Dictionary of national biography. The original plan was for a dictionary of some 15 or 20 volumes that would provide critical biographies of the important figures in Canada's history from the 16th century to the middle of the 20th century."

Guyon has an entry in the first volume, given he lived prior to 1700. I've linked this bio to his article. In its bio of Guyon's seigneure, it describes Guyon and this group of pioneers as "all of whom were the forefathers of important families in the French-Canadian nation". Not news to us but more authoritative recognition from an encyclopedia-like source of his notability as a pioneer.

1. 1. Did he have a role in the colony other than clean land and be a mason? He was one of the founding members of the Compagnie des Habitants which gained a royal charter for a fur-trade monopoly for North America (except for Acadia). This was open in theory to all inhabitants but only the wealthiest leading families could participate.
   2. Beyond the celebrity news, is there notability for the genealogy? Guyon and his wife were identified in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Science as introducing the gene forFriedreich's ataxia into the French-Canadian population. Canuckle 22:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep DCB seems to be a critical biographical encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate one. They have currently about 8,000 articles, extending up through 1920. This is a reasonable number, and I am certainly prepared to accept that anyone with a biography in there is notable for WB purposes. Though freely available it is not PD, so material there will need to be rewritten; unlike DNB, the detail in the articles varies with importance; the detail in the present WP article is considerable greater & well sourced. DGG 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the problems with this article would be dealt with if someone would just copyedit it so that it makes clear to a reader who has no particular knowledge of the history of Canada why this man immigrating at this time is significant. The article has been questioned, I think, simply because it assumes far too much background knowledge in non-Canadian readers. And although some work has been done, I think there is quite lot still to do. HeartofaDog 09:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. HeartofaDog I want to thank you for pushing for more demonstration of his notability. It's spurred me to learn more about this individual, who was almost unknown to me before. The sources were indeed brief and Quebec history (especially in French) is not my area. But I now have a better sense of it and will endeavour to overhaul. Of course, any contributions from better editors is most welcome! Initially, I did take some offense that Wikipedia would be so cavalier as to casually delete a 'founding family' type of Canadian colonist. In reviewing other pioneer articles related to Mayflower and other colonists, I do recognize your initial point that it is difficult to gauge notability in these cases. Several articles were somewhat questionable as stand-alone articles.(eg. Yes they signed the Mayflower agreement but aside from having lots of kids what else are they known for?) Canuckle 15:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Canuckle and DGG, but tag for improvement per cmacd. --JayJasper 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks. I've held off major improvements because why waste further effort on something still listed as up for deletion. I did create Robert Giffard de Moncel, his neighbour who is easily more notable. I hope this content is more inline with what is expected. If people agree, please comment on the Talk:Jean Guyon page rather than in the delete conversation. Open to all feedback. Canuckle 21:43, 25 May 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.