Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-claude Perez

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 decreasing wilipedia global inforlation [sic], i.e., delete. Sandstein 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Perez

Clear violation of WP:AUTO, an article created and edited only by its subject. I take no strong position on whether he is notable (doesn't look like a pass of WP:PROF but maybe five books are enough...) but I think this sort of blatantly self-promoting behavior should be strongly discouraged. He already tried it once before, in early August, and was userfied; I think repeating the same behavior after being told not to calls for stronger measures. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a reason is given for deletion. Creating an autobiography is not a valid reason for deletion - especially since the article appears to have been written in a WP:NPOV fashion. Further, the subject of the article appears to be genuinely notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been moved to Jean-Claude Perez. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
leaning towards delete - google news search [1] doesn't produce much, and Worldcat search indicates his books are held by 15-20 libraries apiece. Even considering that Worldcat might not do as well with books in French, that seems pretty low. Google scholar turns up some articles with single-digit citation figures. If this one is kept, I suggest he be banned from it. But I think we can do without it - I'm comfortable with the judgment that it doesn't pass WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ban people for having conflicts of interest. See WP:COI. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I didn't suggest banning him from Wikipedia entirely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but policy doesn't allow any ban for having a conflict of interest. Editors are merely encouraged to remain neutral when discussing or editing. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go read WP:AUTO. It is much more strongly worded than you suggest. And editors can be blocked or banned for tendentious editing; Perez has today violated the three-revert rule, a blockable offense (though not a bannable one) involving a different conflict of interest, inserting his own work into Fibonacci number. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the ban was suggested based solely on his creating an autobiography, which is not permitted. My comments assumed good faith on the part of the author, since that appeared to be shown in his creation of the autobiography. Violating 3RR or persistently violating WP:NPOV is a different story entirely. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was easy to assume good faith the first time he wrote an autobiography here and was told not to do it. Coming back a month later and doing it again is more questionable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC based on the available info. I agree with Philosopher that the fact that the article is an autobiography is not by itself sufficient grounds for deletion. (WP:AUTO strongly discourages autobiographies, with good reasons, but does not forbid them.) However, the fact that this is an autobio is a reason to look at the article much more closely and skeptically. I have found little to show passing WP:ACADEMIC. Very few citations in GoogleScholar[2] and I have not found much in the WebOfScience either. GoogleBooks results are also small[3] (most hits there are for another person with the same name who appears to be a historian). This looks bad in terms of WP:ACADEMIC since he works in active experimental fields where one expects to see substantial evidence of citability. The fact that his webpage listed in the article is actually a personal blog[4] does not inspire extra confidence either. The only positive indicator of possible notability that I see thus far is the award mentioned in the article, listed there as:1992 "Denis Guichard" prizewinner from the "Fondation de France". I tried to find something about this award by googling but did not get much (also verifying that the prize was actually awarded to him would be necessary). If someone knows something about "Fondation de France" and about its "Denis Guichard" award, please comment here. If this is a sufficiently significant award given for outstanding research accomplishments, he could be notable under criterion 2 of WP:ACADEMIC. Otherwise, in the absence of other data showing significant impact of his research and in view of WP:AUTO concerns, I go with delete. Nsk92 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I also checked MathSciNet. Nothing there for his name either. Nsk92 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, Fondation de France seems to be very notable[5]. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant vanity. Given his lack of discipline as an editor, he just does not deserve an article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy that predicates a subject's notability on their discipline as an editor. -- Dominus (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete here's a link to an RS source about the prize (Peter J. Marcer 1992. Communications: Order and Chaos in DNA — the Denis Guichard Prizewinner: Jean-Claude Perez. Kybernetes 21(2):60 - 61.ISSN:0368-492X, DOI: 10.1108/eb005922). I've spent about half an hour looking through google hits for other "Denis Guichard" winners, some don't strike me as being notable (e.g. Yvette Parès, Association Kokopelli, while others (e.g. Gilles-Eric Séralini) do , and still others look impressive in the Guichard related blurbs, but don't otherwise google up anything (e.g. Dominique Florian). On balance, I think the COI and autobiography problems, and the issues RHaworth raise all sway me to the delete side. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. I simply cannot locate multiple instances where this person has been the subject of articles published by reliable, third-party sources. — Satori Son 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

javascript:insertTags('Jean-claude perez (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)',,) jc perez comment: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) A resulting abnormal output of this conflict initiated by DRr Epstein is the following: 2 independant regular datasin Fibonacci page were erased: on links between dna and fibonacci on one hand and opening a new suggested topic: links between fractals and fionacci I have erased these 2 interesting points... then decreasing wilipedia global inforlation In other hand I increase reference data of the page initiated by Philosopher wiki user. Regards jean claude perezjavascript:insertTags('Jean-claude perez (talk) 01:48, 1 September 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.