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 Speedy Keep The way to dispute a Prod is simply to remove the tag from the article (and preferably to add sources etc as you do so), not to cart the article into an AfD situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Pouliquen[edit]

Another user, User:Jreferee, proposed that this article should be deleted according to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion guideline, bacause the person supposedly "does not meet Wikipedia:Notability". I disagree strongly. This is a member of the Académie française. Every member of the French Academy is notable; that is so obvious that I would never have thought it would need to be stated. I can't imagine why somebody would claim otherwise.

Looking at the contributions of User:Jreferee, it turns out that the same user has also added "proposed deletion" tags to a large number of other biographies of people who appear to meet any reasonable interpretation of the term "notability", including a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry (Yusef Komunyakaa), and several winners of Olympic medals (Yves Mankel, Yuriy Krymarenko, Yuriy Melnichenko and others).

It appears to me that User:Jreferee has simply tagged articles with titles beginning with the letter Y more or less at random. Some of these are not great articles, perhaps, but it does not seem reasonable to me to use "notability" as an excuse to delete articles which are simply incomplete or undeveloped. Pharamond 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I would have just removed the prod and left it at that. Jreferee is nominating articles willy nilly. JuJube 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close per nominator. (never thought I'd say that). Re Jreferee, I earlier followed through his log and de-prodded up some of the more obvious ones (medalists, pro soccer players, smithsonian artists), but, several remained that I didn't know enough about. Neier 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic for Yves Pouliquen has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. The topic fails WP:NOTABILITY. Pouliquen himself might have fame or importance, but WP:NOTABILITY requires that to be set out in published works. This article has been around since April 11, 2006 - almost one year. In that time, the article material has not been attributed to a reliable published source. In response to the ((prod)), the PROD was removed and the remover of the PROD also posted this AfD instead of improving the article. Given this long passage of time and the recent failure to improve the article to address the WP:NOTABILITY concerns given as a reason for the proposed deletion as suggested by WP:PROD, it is unlikely that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:NOTABILITY and should be deleted. -- Jreferee 15:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Keep per published source comments below. -- Jreferee 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to claim that a member of Acc. Francaise is not notable beats worst fears about Wiki editors, on the other hand, this article is abysmally sourced so it should be tagged as such Alf^Photoman 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a speedy close as it has been nominated to be kept? Or is the nominator questioning whether the prod has some validity? If you dispute a prod, the prodder should be the one with the responsibility to escalate. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your comment, Dhartung, and others on this AfD, I think this AfD may have been posted to make a WP:point about the PROD that I posted on the article. I'm sorry that this matter took up everybody's time and apologize for my contribution in it. As always, I am happy to discuss any matter either on my talk page or via email. -- Jreferee 03:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No offense to User:Jreferee, but I find it almost absurd to claim that a member of Acc. Francaise is not notable (unless we assume no knowledge about what Acc. Francaise is). Sure, maybe there are few English-language sources about him, but there are sure to be plenty of French sources. This is a case of the article being insufficiently verified, rather than the subject being non-notable. Please do not confuse the two. I have added three sources to the article to address issues of WP:ATT. I have also included this in the list of French-related deletions in the hope that someone who speaks French can contribute sources to the article. -- Black Falcon 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common sense suggests that a member of the Académie française would be the subject of multiple published works, and indeed a quick Google search finds his biography at the Académie's website and an article in Le Figaro. He has also been in a biographical documentary. It's not surprising that articles about people who have mostly been written about in languages other than English take longer to source than others, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. —Cel ithemis 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article not being expanded or updated for a long time does not make it a prod candidate. Académie française member is notable. STTW (talk) 23:17, 1 March 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.