Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George de Menil (2nd nomination)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George de Menil[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was recently deleted at AfD, then recreated, and I think it at least deserves a thorough discussion again. As I see it, the basic problem with this subject is that we have no in-depth coverage that would confirm notability, per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. We have citations to titles of his books, as well as one of his articles, which are fairly meaningless in this context. We have a capsule biography published by one of the institutions with which he is affiliated, as well as a publisher's blurb, neither of which is independent. We have his CV - no comment. And a directory entry, and something he runs. None of which amounts to very much, from a standpoint of encyclopedic notability.

Also, while not directly bearing on notability, let's point out that the article is written by the subject's daughter - can you say "conflict of interest"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete. It seems like he would deserve an article but as nom said, there are just not enough secondary sources at this time. Elgatodegato (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but cut down). I think anyone who thinks that there is a dichotomy between "independent sources" and "non-independent sources" is severely lacking in clues and quite honestly shouldn't be attempting to write an encyclopedia. We can rely on the non-independent sources for basic non-controversial concrete facts, especially in the academy where lying about one's achievements is not considered to be appropriate. Many of the "independent sources" rely themselves on the non-independent sources, and can often be less reliable - we need to consider the context. After the irrelevant stuff about Latin club is cut down we wait with a cut down version until inevitably the unfortunate happens. As regards COI, his daughter should concentrate on ensuring newspapers or academic journals have information to publish an obituary on his death (even though I hope that this is not for some time yet). Le petit fromage (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Le petit fromage, yes, there are sources which are independent, and those which are not: WP:BASIC speaks about them, as do a host of other guidelines. Sure, no source will come labeled independent or non-independent, but it's usually rather easy to tell which is which. I base my work here on this premise, as do, presumably, many other editors.
- Having said that, it would be useful if, rather than opining on various extraneous points, you could say exactly why the article should be kept, in other words how the subject passes either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, and just which independent sources demonstrate his notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS, read what I wrote above. No, there are very few sources that are truly independent, and those that are non-independent are not necessarily unreliable. This is such a basic point of scholarship, that it is probably more difficult to misunderstand (as you have done) than understand. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Le petit fromage, so you don't actually have any independent sources, as demanded by WP:BASIC and contemplated by WP:RS, about this subject. Fair enough: I just wanted to make that clear to any other participants. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:PROF with reliable sources, ergo he should be kept. The fact that you couldn't recognise a reliable source if it bit you on the arse is irrelevant. End of discussion. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found this source, which states that he was "founding director of the economics research division of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris". I believe that that, stated in the New York Times, is sufficient to establish notability under WP:PROF criterion 6. The rest of the (non-independent) sources can be used to establish facts. However, I feel that the rest of the sources do need a bit of a trim. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 20:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To pass WP:PROF #6 he would have to be Director of the Institute itself, not one of its divisions. And only if this Institute is a major academic institution (which it may well be). Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person seems to have done enough to be notable, but there is almost nothing in the article that is sourced to a reliable source, and I can't find anything. I even tried searching his name in French newspapers and got nothing. If someone does find reliable sources, this article will need to be entirely re-written using those sources and only those sources. LaMona (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think he may qualify as WP:PROF, which combined with his role as adviser to the presidents of Ukraine and Romania (and his subsequent publications about their economies) make him notable. I've run into this before when trying to compile info for a bio - economists are very rarely the subject of articles and with so many journals and papers it's hard to know which ones are truly important. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about economics/academia can give insight. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The subject fails WP:PROF#C1 if only papers are considered, with a h-index of 9 and 500 citations. However, the subject seems have some significant publications and contributions, as evidenced by the article, which may pass WP:PROF#C1. Esquivalience ^t 03:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs work, but I see he can pass WP:GNG at least. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2015 (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.