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. Salvio 10:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz[edit]

Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz (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)

Fails to meet the notability criteria found at WP:NPROF. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, When scientists discover species they will receive significant coverage regarding their discovery which is why this article was created. The source provided in the article shows he passes GNG. Also this person does not appear to a professor. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Please list this "significant coverage" that you claim exists on the Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz page. So far your edits to that page completely lack any citations to reliable secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Significant coverage is not required for NPROF, only evidence of significant impact. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Go Into The Light has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Details on their talk page. The above comment shows why; it ignores the fact that Valoem appears to accept the fact that d'Acoz fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) but argues that d'Acoz passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline -- which does require significant coverage -- based upon the coverage cited in the article. He doesn't, of course, as anyone reading those citations can clearly see. In other words. WP:IDHT + WP:IDHT = WP:IDHT²... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified this person is not a professor,but a research scientist therefore the basis of this AfD is invalid. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now you think that for some reason we are not allowed to delete pages about non-notable research scientists? You really need to start quoting the exact wording of Wikipedia policies that support your claims. Right now it really looks like you are just making up new rules and ignoring existing ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, there's a little bit of confusion, NPROF applies to all academics. Research scientist is just a type of academic who does research more than teaching and a research assistant is a very low rank of academic (often people are research assistant before they are a PhD student). NProf is just meant to be a more rational way of assessing scientists and other academics because they can get significant press without notability or be notable for their ideas but not have biographical information. PainProf (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a good enough publication record, he is listed as a Research Assistant but his claim to notability is the academic sphere. All sources are about his academic work. The sources in the article are traced to press releases. Also science is prone to churnalism so we need to be careful. From my own experience we generally send out a press release and can get some pretty high impact coverage but it's very transient and doesn't add much to notability. @Guy Macon: I'm not sure we need the context for creation on the page as this AfD should stand on its own. Would you consider removing? PainProf (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it, but 90% of it would have to be repeated in replies to Valoem. I think that it is significant that this page was created specifically because because Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz fails our notability guideline at WP:NPROF. Please note that I just changed the text on the collapsed section. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Writing taxonomic papers has never granted immediate wp notability. Cédric fails the basic WP:PROF notability criteria. No Valoem describing a species does not grant notability.--Kevmin § 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails PROF and GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He has one well-cited single-author monograph, "Inventaire et distribution des crustacés décapodes de l'Atlantique nord-oriental", and a bunch of lesser publications with many coauthors in which he does not appear to have a prominent role. A case could be made for WP:PROF#C1 or maybe WP:AUTHOR but I think it's borderline. What tips the scale for me to weak delete instead of weak keep is that there's so little else to say about him than his publication record — unlike most academics we have little information even about his education, career, awards or other recognition, or anything like that. It might have been a better choice to make an article about the book, which appears more notable than its author, and redirect there per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have no objection to a newly created article about the monograph and this BLP being turned into a redirect to that article. We would likely need someone who speaks the language to create the article about the monograph. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Francophones should not be difficult to find. And in any case it would be the language of references about the monograph (assuming they exist) that would be more relevant than the language of the monograph itself. The greater difficulty would be finding someone who cares enough about decapod taxonomy to make the effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is one of those cases where (a) the citation profile looks less impressive the more closely it is examined, and (b) one of the publications is more wiki-notable than the author. Moreover, as noted above, we have even less biographical information available than we normally do for academic bio-stubs. In a sense, there's not an article to write. We could make this article a redirect to Inventaire et distribution des crustacés décapodes de l'Atlantique nord-oriental, once that page is written, but the text in it is churnalism and doesn't need to be preserved. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The claim "there is a strong consensus against in the Wikipedia community" seems to be directly contradicted by this comment at a concurrent and related debate. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 10#Notability of taxonomists failed to arrive at a consensus as to how to word the policy to cover all cases. Not a single person in that discussion argued that discovering multiple insect species automatically confers notability, a notion that there was and is is a strong consensus against in the Wikipedia community. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Go Into The Light has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Details on their talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I notice that this person distinctly notable in the discussion of a separate AfD. He passes WP:GNG based on the sources I've listed. He does not pass WP:NPROF has as is he is not professor. The grounds of this AFD is invalid. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources in the article do not provide in-depth coverage of d'Acoz. He is much farther from GNG than from PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has been pointed out to you already that WP:NPROF is not restricted to professors - that's just a shortcut for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Read the page yet? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the notability guideline, per others. One cannot just make up notability criteria ("discovering a species equals notability!") and not expect to be called on it. Zaathras (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon:Why has Jens Franzen not been nominated as well? He is no more of less notable than Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz or Gunter Bechly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the most stereotypical of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Almost certainly the answer is: because by chance he had not yet come to the attention of people trying to delete articles. However there are also several other plausible avenues to notability for him than through his publications, not the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using this as an argument for deletion or inclusion, however Franzen is equally notable as Bechly and d'Udekem d'Acoz. If you look at the further reading section he has publications which pass our guidelines. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem created the Jens Franzen page on 04:14, 3 August 2020‎ with zero evidence of notability. I have listed it at AfD. I have something to do this morning, but expect a {{WP:ANI]] report for Valoem's WP:POINTY page creations later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dave souza (talk · contribs) requested that page be written, I wrote it to improve the encyclopedia and he thanked me for it. That was not a pointy creation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I didn't realize that dave souza had requested that page. All I saw was one more page created by you that contained zero evidence of notability and then you waiting 24 hours and using the fact that your newly-created page had not yet been nominated for deletion as an argument for keeping another page with no evidence of notability. Let us hope that some other editor will do the work you failed to do and will add citations to reliable secondary sources that demonstrate Jens Franzen' notability. If I see that I will be happy to withdraw the AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. I transwikied it from de wikipedia and did add two sources replacing the dead links, no doubt the page can improved I'll ask an editor I work with who is excellent at find sources. I'll improve it when I get a chance. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, I confirm asking for the Franzen page as a longstanding red link on Darwinius, clearly I'm not familiar with the NPROF standards and it was harder to find sources than anticipated. Hopefully the AfD will bring some improvements to the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The arguments for deletion listed are persuasive. (That being said, Valoem's creation of the Franzen article may have been legitimate, but bringing it up in this AfD was sure as hell bad faith.) Ravenswing 23:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does his status on Google Scholar indicate notability in anyway? He seems to have many academic publications, is this being overlooked? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you failed to read earlier comments such as mine in which this was already explicitly addressed? Also, having many publications has never been one of the criteria for academic notability; what is important is how impactful the publications are, not how many of them there are. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

`kkk it probably does pass GNG because of the Readers Digest article, but it certainly meets WP:GNG. I think /my good friend and long time colleage David E, who is accustomed to fields where articles get very high citation figures, is interpreting the google scholar data inocrrectly. Paleontology (and descriptive biology in general) is a field with very low citation density, and high citation counts are not to be expected. But this is enormously better than expected, and I think the very hgihest citation figures I have ever seen for the subject: 419, 219, 126, 91, 88, 59. etc. would be enough a citation record even in a field like biomedicine.

Anyone who for any reason can find us articles in neglected fields deserves credit for it, even if the motive --I might even say -- especially if the motive-- is to show how neglected the field is here.'

And I point out to Guy that we do not need secondary sources for notability by WP:PROF--the publications are the secondary sources. If w did want such sources, almost every scientist who had been meaningfully cited more than 2 or 3 times would be notable, and we 'd be havingthesame overinclusion problem as in some fields I will not name. WP:PROF wasmeant to put some reason into the discussions. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One minor correction: I think the citation counts are really 419+219, 126, 91, etc. That is, the 419 and the 219 look like the same publication. It really is heavily cited, and I think it counts for a lot because it's single-authored, but just as one publication. The next few on the list have many authors. That's why I think the book is more notable than its author. If it were 419 and 219 as separate publications I would think the case for notability through #C1 would be considerably stronger, and I already think it's at least borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 8 August 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.