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 keep, the subject is notable (the lack of which is a reason to delete, by the way) and it is highly plausible that references exist to back up the information. For anyone who still feels this should be deleted, I'd recommend waiting a couple months - I'll tag this with a ((unreferenced)) tag when I remove the AfD header. If after a few months there are no references, then deletion may be in order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Alexandre LeMoyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

as per WP:N. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think that being a wealthy landowner and militia captain demonstrates that he was a prominent individual in New France. The article does not have a separate references section, but quotes a reference to him in Vie de Madame Youville (probably one of the following two books)
  • Faillon, Étienne Michel, 1799-1870. Vie de Mme d'Youville, fondatrice des Soeurs de la charité de Villemarie dans l'île de Montréal, en Canada. -- Villemarie : Chez les Soeurs de la charité, 1852.
  • Sattin, Antoine, 1767-1836, Vie de Madame d'Youville, fondatrice et première supérieure des soeurs de la charité ou soeurs grises / par M. Antoine Sattin. Québec : s.n., 1930.

as well as the details of his burial from church records. The article was created by Jflemoine , who may be a descendant or relative. --Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Prove it. If I write an article about my grandaddy and add spurious references to an obscure book stating that he was... the Sheriff of Nottingham... how many people would vote Keep? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing corroborating notability found in Google search. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — The individual clearly exists. For those who have a notability fetish, I challenge you to the following: (1) Give me an objective standard, and (2) explain why it's relevant in the first place. I fail to see how a topic must meet some arbitrary, currently-undefined (and perhaps undefinable) bar of "notability" to be relevant to a project designed to collect the sum of all human knowledge. The idea is absurd on its face. Deletion of this article, and the advocacy of it, therefore runs entirely counter to the goals of this project. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia should be about everything is not considered a compelling argument. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not to you, but I find it quite reasonable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:BIO is a guideline, demonstrating broad Wikipedia community WP:CONSENSUS.--Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree with it, or even to act in accordance with it, necessarily. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BIO is simply a guideline for trying to ensure WP:NPOV, V and OR can be met. It is not about deciding who is and isn't important; that isn't our job and would be introducing more POV and bias into the process. We simply require it be noted enough to make an accurate article possible. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The book or books were not obscure at the time they were published, since the Sisters of Charity (Grey Nuns) were a significant part of the history of Quebec. As other people have pointed out, Google is not the best source of information about dead people. --Eastmain (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply So OK, you don't wanna use Google. I tried Google Scholar (no results returned); Academic Search Premier (no results returned), and JSTOR (no results returned). Would you like me to try another database? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending a much better thought out deletion reason than "per WP:N". Some searching indicates that the original spelling of his name may be "René-Alexandre Lemoine" or "René-Alexandre Le Moyne" which returns more google hits - enough that I am convinced he's notable and we can have a good Encyclopaedic article. To get good references is going to require someone in Canada go to a library. Google is certainly the worst way of determining notability for a subject like this - The web has little (except for that which google books has scanned) prior to the last 30 years and very very little prior to the 20th Century. It's even worse when you're looking at an Anglicised version of a French name - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - on the one hand, this article is the only contribution of User:Jflemoine, probably a descendant. Plus, the "individual clearly exists" argument is terribly annoying. And there's no definite assertion of notability. On the other hand, Peripitus hints he may be more notable than the Internet would indicate, and I'm willing to buy that. Biruitorul (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'keep significant local figure, assuming the refs get added. The infrmation must have come from somewhere, AGF. The information is plausible.DGG (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (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.