Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Gertoux

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gérard Gertoux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is.... special. Deleted in 2012 (twice), the fundamental problem seems unresolved. While the article is lengthy and has superficial referenciness, virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated. It doesn't help that his CV reads like a French Buckaroo Banzai but with the names of god instead of brain surgery. French Wikipedia apparently has no article on him (deleted in 2012 and 2018). There's a huge, howling suspicion that the author of this article is the subject, given his other editing focuses. The Talk page has many inventive excuses for failing to achieve any of the metrics normally associated with anyone who passes WP:NACADEMIC, including journals not allowing Google Scholar to index them, but in the end you'd expect at least some independent secondary sources about the subject, after all these years of trying to get him on Wikipedia, and I didn't find any. Guy (help!) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really would like to request that sources be verified to see if they are independent and primary sources. With all due respect, let me express that saying that "virtually all sources turn out to be primary" is exaggerated. I would like it to be taken into account that in the diversity of minority groups of Christianity there are points of view with strong evidence, but inclusion is not allowed because they are considered irrelevant under the justification of "fringe theory", or because it is not the "mainstream view". Fringe and notable are two different things. I believe that any difference of opinion can be addressed by quoting wikipedia's policies verbatim, so that we do not expose our personal opinion. Sorry if I don't have the right words to express myself, or if I have been disrespectful. Thank you for your understanding and for your help. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable standard is met. Passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse, and a grievance about not getting a doctorate do not a notability case make. (Also, the "G. Gertoux has presented conferences at different universities" is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does.) I would actually expect the Google Scholar citation counts to be low, as is often true in the humanities, but not this low; and there's nothing on JSTOR or anywhere else to suggest that his fringe ideas are even taken seriously enough to rebut. XOR'easter (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not please do not exaggerate and generalize in secondary sources, this seems a partial point of view. It is read in the policies, in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics that "many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles". Please check the references in the article (i. e. JSTOR 43724942). Google Scholar or JSTOR are not they are not synonymous with notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that JSTOR item. Being listed in "Books received" is not a signifier of notability. It's just evidence that a book exists, not that it had any influence or even attracted any attention. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities, in example:
    • He is followed by emeritus professors Charles Perrot, George Wesley Buchanan, François Bœspflug, Hermann Hunger;
    • He is followed by professors Won W. Lee, Ola Wikander, Jozef Hudec,
    • He is followed by faculty members of a University: Miroslav Černý, Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Daniel Faivre, Anne Pasquier,
    • In the Enciclopedia of Christianity is cited by emeritus professors Geoffrey W. Bromiley and emeritus professor Jaroslav Pelikan, full professor Jan Milic Lochman, honorary professor Erwin Fahlbusch, writer John Mbiti
    • He is also cited by professors: R. J. Wilkinson, Philippe Barbey, Bruno Bioul, Thomas D. Ross
    • He is cited by other scholars: Giuseppe Veneziano, Jean-Pierre Dupeyron, Didier Fontaine, Father Michael Gilligan, Xaris M. Koutelakis,
    • Gertoux also appears in international libraries as BIBSYS: 5018010, BNF: cb13548516z, ISNI: 0000 0001 1672 4722, LCCN: n2002090734, NLI: 000052631, ORCID: 0000-0001-5916-0445, RERO: 02-A012628396, SUDOC: 050812246, SEMANTIC SCHOLAR: 108067232, VIAF: 74015693, etc
    • Gertoux also stimulated studies that contradict his arguments such as those of John Laurence Gee, Peter J. Huber and Steven Ortlepp, so it can be concluded that his study has not been ignored.
    • There are other good comments of his book by E.J. Revell, H. Cazelles, D.C. Hopkins, S. Morag, E. Lipinski, M. Harl, Jean Bottéro, E.A. Livingstone, and D.N. Freedman
    • Among the publishing houses of the secondary sources, we can mention Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Brill, Editions L'Harmattan, Vita e Pensiero, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Institute of Oriental Studies, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Valparaiso University: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Baltimore, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, De Gruyter, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Delete. Works in fringe areas (nothing wrong with that) but has made near-zero impact. I suggest Salt too as this goes on and on. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics. The citation count is way below impact level and he fails other measures of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another citation of Gertoux made by Bruce M. Metzger [1], Sarah Lind (editor of Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation) [2], New Testament Abstracts 47, pp. 553 [3], a comment by Anthony Byatt [4], by Michael John Rood [5] and by Reference and Research Book News [6]. Let me express that in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria it read that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" and I guess the condition 1, 4 and 7 is met. in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria it reads that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." In Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals it reads that 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. As I said before, I think it can defended the existence of the article. I think that to avoid interpretations to wikipedia policies, it is better to quote them verbatim. Let me also express that the claims for deletion are exaggerated, rather than presenting the evidence as it is. I suspect that the problem is not notability, rather, that the editors who request to delete do not share Gertoux's ideas, but they are against those who quote Gertoux, the publishing houses and the national and university libraries. In wikipedia policies, there is not a number of citations to establish notability. Excuse me, I'm just trying to state my arguments, not to contradict the other editors. Best regards.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, A veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism... Guy (help!) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me User:JzG because English is not my native language and I don't understand some jargon. Please explain exactly what you mean with "a veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism..."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, non-notable writers.
What you need is reliable independent secondary sources about Gertoux. Not namechecks. Guy (help!) 23:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But we need evidence that an individual is notably influential in the world of ideas. A person can be notable even if their biography is not the subject of secondary sources, as long as their ideas are. That is not the case here. Passing mentions are not sufficient. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.biblioiranica.info/dating-the-reigns-of-xerxes-and-artaxerxes/
  2. ^ https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/157125/1/OBO.SA_40_CRRAI_DEF.pdf
    • The first link is to a blog post that merely quotes an abstract. That is not substantial coverage or detailed analysis. And merely having presented his work at a conference counts for nothing — all academics do that. Everyone presents, everyone publishes. In order to be notable, those publications have to be influential, and we have seen no evidence of that here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there may be a competence issue here. The article's creator cites Metzger above and in the article itself added "Influential professor Bruce M. Metzger call the Gertoux's web page as a "further scholarly information on the origins of sacred names." We'd never hype someone to make him look convincing, but the problem is Metzger never said that. That's a link added at the bottom of a statement by Metzger by the pastor who posted the statement to his church's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Indeed the article in its current form is lengthy and gets into unnecessary details. But Gertoux has surely influenced the research horizons and is highly involved in the contemporary discussions on the sacred Tetragrammaton in its historical and theological dimensions. I think that a neat article about his scientific contributions would be more than welcome. -- pvasiliadis  13:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His work has only a handful of citations, indicating limited impact. He very much fails the average professor test for WP:NPROF. I didn't find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and I don't see other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me state that I see some little troubles. As it reads in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions: "the debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments" and also it read that "when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". I guess that the recommendation take a break before voting is not being taken into account for a critical analysis in references. In example it was argumented exaggeration "virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated", "at least some independent secondary sources about the subject", "passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse" when there are just one by a professor and maybe or not with a lot of discution acceptable (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."). In this talk references are being criticized superficially and it is not specified which ones, or how they are not reliable. It is important to state how Gertoux "fails other measures of notability". About lectures, I did not find any policy to address whether the existence of conferences is or is not an indicator of notability: "is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does". In Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics i could not find any measurable intruction for quantifiable instruction to establish "near-zero impact" or "limited impact". Perhaps not in all the references there is a specific review in which it is agreed, a work cited is influential, and it is already an indicator of notability. In Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources it is read that reviews are not necessary to to give reliability to a primary source.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
?I am not sure what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience, I just want you to specify without deviating from the topic, citing verbating the wikipedia policies and refuting the arguments of the first comment "keep" (Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities) what i made, for you hold the affirmation "how has made near-zero impact" for further discussion or to show something that I have not noticed, perhaps why those authorities, publishing houses, or libraries are unreliable.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe someone else. If there are unacceptable sources in the article, which are acceptable and which are not, and decide how much of the article is not necessary. So we convert a qualifying data into a quantifiable data, and maybe that will help. Thanks in advance for your valuable time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. His top-cited publication appears to have 7 citations. That's not impactful, by any standard. We rarely keep academics that don't have multiple pubs with over 100 citations. (There's no specific threshold, since it varies widely by field.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to contradict you, but there are 7 citations at your discretion, so a broader answer is needed. Google Scholar only shows 7 citations, but this was talked before. It is not about impressing me with your answer, but rather taking a critical test attached to wikipedia policies that everyone can read. You are truly correct in saying that the number of citations is not required in wikipedia's policies to establish notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert of Wikipedia policies, although I use and appreciate the tool very much, in many different languages. My impression is that we risk to transform it in a sort of "social network" where only "followers" with a lot of "likes" survive. Concerning international conference papers, I find the comment "... trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does" quite polemic. I personally know many associate professors who never published international papers. I also know many university researchers who published some papers and attended conferences only at national level. So, in my opinion and experience, the statement "every academic does" is not accurate. There is an established process (mostly "double blind") to review submitted research papers before being accepted: only a few survive the step and even less authors will be invited to present their findings in international conferences. The author did it and UniZH is a well reputed international University. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 09:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:E966:316B:B7CF:AEE5 (talk)
  • Keep Besides the list of scholars previously mentioned, Gertoux is positively quoted for his work on the tetragrammaton (which is far from being a "fringe area", since the scholarly community has a renewed interested in it as we can see from the recent works of McDonough, Shaw, Lepesqueux, Surls, Meyer, Coutts, Wilkinson, Arduini or Vasileiadis) by A. Chouraqui (famous scholar and Bible translator), in Moïse (Flammarion, Paris, 1997, p.47), Arduini & Pizzorni, La Bibbia prima del dogma (Aracne ed. 2018, p.83, 146) ; another mention can be found in Descouleurs, La laïcité a-t-elle perdu la raison? (Parole et silence, 2001, p.153) ; a DVD documentary has been made by F. Poppenberg (Der Name Gottes, 2014 ; translated in several languages), where the main arguments are drawn from his work ; his historical investigations are quoted by the translator of J. Tabor, La véritable histoire de Jésus (Robert Laffont, Paris, 2006, p.340) ; even when they disagree scholars do know is work and quote it (e.g. Gabolde, Toutankhamon, Pygmalion, Paris, 2015, p.261). That is the indication that 1) WP:PROF standard is met (Gertoux is known and quoted by a large variety of scholars, in diverse languages, from English or French, to German or Italian), 2) WP:AUTHOR standard is met (Gertoux participates in cutting-edge professional conferences on chronological/historical issues, with peer-reviewed proceedings ; his work on the divine name so proves to be unavoidable (as the last monographies on the subject testify) and has been referenced in important bibliographical lists such as Elenchus of Biblica (2004, vol. 20, p.159). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areopage (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Areopage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
User Areopage just demonstrated how it is recommended not to be guided only by Google Scholar as it reads in Wikipedia:Notability (Academics)#Citation metrics.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Just publishing stuff creates no notability. It is having the stuff noted by others that does. In this case there is almost no evidence of noting by others despite the protestations of the red links and spas. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
So it would be great if the responses from both sides, keep and delete are expanded and address the reasons forcefully.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe, let me express that in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources not only demand "review" so that a secondary source weighs a primary. I understand your concern about the number of votes, since what prevails is the foundation.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With much respect let me say that there is no need to go and search in Google Scholar or Scopus when the sources are in the article.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Single-digit citation counts and no published independent book reviews that I could find means that he fails to pass both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Note in particular the text of WP:PROF: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient. As for the claim that coverage in The Encyclopedia of Christianity is enough: that seems to suggest an argument via WP:GNG, which requires that the sources used be plural and in-depth, neither of which appears to be the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please David Eppstein, I beg you to expand your answer. In the article does not appear all the Gertoux's publications, rather the influential.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that they are influential, and without evidence of influence no number of additional publications could help. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know if it is of any use, but I brought the previous version of the page that was deleted.[7].--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Too bad is that it has been presumed so quickly and without analysis that KCharitakis is a single-purpose accounts or canvassed users [8] [9]. I invite research into global contributions.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of independent reliable sources. There is also some sort of meat-puppet sock-puppetry pattern on this article with the single purpose accounts with few other edits voting keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are comment of haters typical of the Wikipedia style? If this is the case, I need to change my mind and review the use I do of it. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 08:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:E901:FCCE:3CC7:51B3 (talk)
  • Delete. Gertoux has written many books, but to publish them he turns to Lulu.com. In 1999 he did get one book published by the reputable firm L'Harmattan, but it was almost completely ignored: Gertoux complains that the only mention of it was in the Revue juive de Genève. He then had it published in English by University Press of America, which some have thought might be an "academic vanity press". Disappointed at the paucity of reaction to this work also, he decided, he himself says, to acquire official recognition of his competence in archaeology and history by getting a Ph.D. Two high-class institutes of learning refused to accept the work he presented, because of its fundamentalist content. He maintains, for instance the historicity of Noah's Flood and dates to about 4000 B.C. the appearance of the first humans. Should Wikipedia, unlike those institutes, recognize this as anything but a fringe theory? The article proposed for deletion also presents as a reliable source the reproduction on the website http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/ of the first version of the English Wikipedia article on him and considers it a claim to fame that Gertoux is "a member of the International Association for Assyriology (IAA)" (i.e., he has sent in his subscription?) and that he is the founder of Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits, of which the Internet only informs (here and here) that in 2000 it was registered as having its seat at 137 rue Bugeaud, Lyon, France (Gertoux's home?); and here that it was earlier (1991) registered at 3, rue J.-.P.-Rameau, 14100 Lisieux, France. No indication of membership. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite strenuous efforts at demonstrating otherwise, all of the claimed qualifications and cited sources are not indicative of an article subject that passes WP:NACADEMICS. None of the eight criteria are satisfied by either the article or the discussion above. Many of the claimed accomplishments are either meaningless (e.g., his books have been indexed in libraries) or very dubious (e.g., publishing a book through a publisher accused of "dealing in bulk"). A large portion of the article attempts to "borrow" notability through mentioning other academics but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the mentions by others are extremely disputable in legitimacy. The only route towards notability, therefore, is through the WP:GNG. The only independent, reliable sourcing that makes significant mention of Gertoux is in relation to a subject that the current article avoids entirely: his lack of qualification for a PhD and claims of religious discrimination. Even that, however, founders on WP:ONEEVENT. There is nothing worth salvaging through WP:ATD so the only option left is Delete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the already cited paper of international conference, I found a second paper accepted for publication by UniZH in 2018, "Dating the Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40" (2018, pp. 179-206). Here the publisher: http://www.peeters-leuven.be/home.html which accepted the research paper for the archeological section. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8 (talk) ; Apparently duplicate !vote struck
  • Comment: I find quite surprising that contributors with critical attitude find the time to scan through "lulu" publications but at the same time openly ignore research papers of international conferences published with peer review in the field of archeology. It's indeed stunning that some people can cite student gossip, considering it someway authoritative, but ignore a Wikipedia entry on UPA which states: "is an academic publisher based in the United States". Here the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America . By the way, I cannot find any journalist article with the supposed accusation of "dealing in bulk", since it dates to the previous century and the link to the original document (whatever its validity) is broken. Finally, accusations of fundamentalism should be out of scope here, since nothing about this is mentioned in the debated wikipedia entry, it sounds like ad personam criticism. I just would like to remark that, altough I am not especially favorable to fundamentalism, Wikipedia has indeed accepted publish many other pages on openly fundamentalist persons. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 23:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8 (talk)
2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8, I am not taking part in this AfD but want to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which designates how to determine when an academic is considered notable, for Wikipedia purposes. Most of the editors, pro or con, are referring to the criteria set out in this Wikipedia guideline. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that signore Frattini's comment about the publisher was directed to me. Our article about UPA that you linked to makes it clear that the "deals in bulk" assessment was hardly "student gossip". It is literally the title of the only reference in that article. Stating it is "an academic publisher based in the United States," on the other hand, cuts no mustard whatsoever. I could found an "academic publisher based in the United States" in my den. This type of argument from nothing is what I referred to when I mentioned strenuous efforts. All of Gertoux's claimed attainments similarly fall apart at the least inspection. Attempts to present these as actual academic accomplishments damages the credibility of any supposed notability instead of furthering the argument for keeping. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Eggishorn, thanks for your salutation, I can just suggest you to be more accurate, in case you want to see your work published. For example, you may start by writing it correctly, i.e. without final "e". You referred to the title of an article with a broken reference in Wikipedia, an article of a newspaper dated 1995, this way I can only assume that you haven't read it at all. I'm happy for you if you can find an academic publisher "in your den", but this your respectable opinion: nothig like this is stated on the wikipedia page, you can maybe enhance it to the benefit of the rest of us. Actually I'm slowly changing my mind on the advantage for Gertoux to have a Wiki page with his name on it: haters of your sort may fake it overnight, without any kind of control or validation bythis platform. For somebody with more than 3'000 followers on Academia alone, I really doubt it would be of any practical advantage. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 21:13, 02 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:342F:2F79:1584:C0FC (talk)
Just for the record, I have no need to aspire to publication. I have been published. Multiple times. By unquestionably legitimate academic and commercial publishers. I would, however, never consider myself notable under Wikipedia guidelines for this. And apropos of nothing in particular, you may want to read Muphry's law. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gérard_Gertoux_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137894222"