The Elephant House (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is virtually a textbook example of how not to close an AFD. No consideration given to input in the existing AFD, and the closing rationale is based solely upon the closing admin's view on what should be done with the article. Sarah was free to express an opinion in the AFD, and that opinion may or may not have resulted in the article being kept. She was not free to keep it in opposition to all input in the AFD discussion. —Kww(talk) 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oy vey. This was an epic fail on my part. I'm a public art scholar, what can I say? :) Anyway, you can see the at length discussion that took place here: User_talk:SarahStierch#RE:_Closing_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FThe_Elephant_House_.282nd_nomination.29 Not much to really say here, except that I've had my slap on the wrist (this is my first big epic fail as an admin!) and sorry for the problems it has caused. I do believe it falls under our notability guidelines it's mentioned in multiple reliable sources. If we delete this...we better get on top of deleting the majority of public art articles on Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - a recently promoted admin made a borderline bad close, but the AfD was struggling to make a sound rationale for deletion, and what matters is improving the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist with SarahStierch's closing comments as a Keep !vote. While she makes a good argument about notability, I think it was technically an incorrect close. (I'd lean toward keeping the article myself.) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Now this close really does strike me as wrong "with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish". Either a delete close or a no consensus WP:NPASR close would be within admin discretion. I thought it'd be quite obvious that a keep close is not an available option when no editor argued for keeping the article (except for speedy keeps for disruptive nominations), but apparently I was wrong. Even worse, the close itself is a textbook supervote. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - if the "reliable sources" supporting this article are enough, then virtually any outdoor elephant is "public art". What are the "multiple reliable sources that this is a notable work of public art? (Nevermind, this is what wikipedia is now. Probably will remain. But I'm sorry editor energy is put into stuff like this.) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Sarah, given what you say above, it's probably simplest if you relist the debate yourself? The closer always has discretion to self-overturn and if you're willing to do that then we can skip over the whole DRV process and go straight to the fresh discussion. You can leave it to run if you'd rather, but I'm positive that the view expressed by Mark Arsten and T. Canens above will prevail, and it's right that it should. Well done for being willing to admit a mistake.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm all for the admin choosing to relist themselves... except that this had been relisted twice already with minimal participation, so I think the best recourse would be to overturn (or have the admin reclose) to No consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are on the right track, but what about the WP:NPASR (suggested in WP:QUORUM and elsewhere)?  Instead of changing the closing, what about asking the closing admin to add "WP:NPASR one week after this closing."?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete- Agreed that the discussion was unlikely to get much more participation. However, the nomination and sole delete !vote were thoughtful and well argued, so IMO a workable consensus was reached. Reyk _YO! 03:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• relist certainly a bad close but it isn't clear it should be deleted. I think after being at DRV we'll get some additional voices. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - based on the discussion, it should've been closed as soft delete. Based on the article, it should've been closed as keep. Closing admin should've !voted, rather than closed, to be sure. Doing anything seems pointlessly bureaucratic, since the right outcome was reached. WilyD 08:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the conclusion, but I'm not so sure about the WP:QUORUM.  Since both !votes were taken down, what should the close be when the weighting of the !votes is 0-0?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone really wants to renominate, that's their business, but I can't support nominating something for deletion that obviously should be kept. WilyD 05:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close without prejudice  This deletion review can be immediately closed, as the DRV nominator is inexperienced in the deletion process, and presumably unaware that DRV issues need to be discussed on the talk page of the closing administrator before bringing them to DRV.  Had the DRV nominator tried to discuss the matter, the closing admin could have pointed out this post made by the Xfd nominator, "I'm satisfied from Sarah's response that, despite the closing appearing sloppy, there was no malicious intent, and as she has improved the article drastically, making my initial argument for deletion moot, there is no longer any need to bring it up to Deletion Review."  Unscintillating (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Inexperienced" as I am, I know that speedy closes of any kind are inappropriate whenever there is any controversy. Despite your satisfaction with the end result, the close was atrociously done, and, based on current article contents, deletion may still be appropriate. If you read over my RFAs, you would know why I refrain from AFD closes ... I just don't need the stress.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is there a policy, guideline, or essay that says, "speedy closes of any kind are inappropriate whenever there is any controversy"?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you look at the closing admin's talk page before starting this DRV?  There was an on-going discussion.  The AfD nominator had withdrawn their objection to the closing an hour before you posted the DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I said nothing about my "satisfaction with the end result", and I quoted another editor that used the word "satisfied", I suspect that the previous post is a hasty edit with limited fact-checking.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise, I said nothing about the close, so implying that I did so is confusion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't need to read the nominator's RFA pages to know that the nominator should have discussed the matter with the closing admin, just like any other editor, before bringing the matter to DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per pigs mostly. AfD nominations that fail to make a case for deletion can be closed as keep even in the absence of any keep votes. Taking into consideration prior AfD discussions should be encouraged. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete as there is a valid nomination and without a single keep, the use of AfD1 to support a keep is not valid as AfD was in fact withdrawn, example of supervote. Mtking ^(edits) 19:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the nominator of this AfD has withdrawn objections to the closing?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the only special power granted the nominator is that you can withdraw the AFD up and until the first delete !vote is entered? Once that happens, you have no special power over the article's fate.—Kww(talk) 05:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So MtKing's argument is reasonable because the first AfD nominator withdrew concerns during the AfD, and the second AfD nominator withdrew concerns after the AfD?  There are two additional points here, one is that AfD is not a vote count, so "entering" a delete !vote does not prevent a closing admin from taking down the !vote.  The closing admin in this case has taken down the delete !vote, so an "Overturn to Speedy Keep WP:NPASR" remains in order for this DRV.  The second point is that MtKing's !vote here does not consider WP:QUORUM.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and relist. There is certainly not present consensus to delete--what there is consensus to do, can be better seen from an AfD than here. . Mtkings's argument, and Kww's apparent support of it , are about bureaucratic procedure, not the article or the AfD or the deletion review in any substantive sense.
• Overturn and relist. An administrator should generally not close an AfD as "keep" when all the recommendations have been "delete". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist without prejudice - Sarah's own professional bias may have misled her a little here. No big deal: if you're not overturned EVER, you're probably being too timid for the project's own good. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The two deletes may be weak, but that's all there was in the AfD. Sarah should have simply provided her !vote, not !supervote. Demote her closure to a !vote and relist. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - The AfD discussion only addressed the sources in the article and not whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. No consensus would have been the proper close, even though all the AfD positions were delete. The close itself was insufficient, but some of it does carry weight, so we can't overturn to no consensus. I was going to NAC close this DRV as "overturn and relist", but admin SarahStierch's above wasn't clear on what she wanted done and her post above was followed by mixed positions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like closing admin Sarah's public art scholar instincts were correct:

• Siobhan Roberts (February 7, 2004). "Who needs a speed bump when you've got a white elephant? 'One of the practical things it's done is slowed traffic down on the street ? a lot'". Globe and Mail. p. M3.
• Kate Harries (May 6, 2004). "Art by the yard; Search for the perfect garden sculpture leads to an odyssey through Ontario's arts community 'We allow for a measure of craziness when it comes to my gardening purchases,' writes Kate Harries". Toronto Star. p. J1. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Alana Wilcox (November 30, 2005). The State of the Arts: Living With Culture in Toronto. UTOpia series. Vol. 2. Coach House Books. p. 351. ISBN 155245178X. OCLC 699812267.
• Zosia Bielski (August 12, 2006). "Home on the strange: odd abodes celebrated: Shunning orthodoxy". National Post. p. A10. Retrieved October 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
• Nathalie Atkinson (June 2, 2007). "There's no place like home". National Post. p. 4. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

You stick a big, white plaster elephant in your front yard and someone's going to write about it. Move The Elephant House at 77 Yarmouth Road to An Elephant in the Room (sculpture), as it is a better name for the topic. Then, use The Elephant House for The Elephant House in Yarmouth Port per: 1. Virginia Rohan (May 2, 2004). "At the Elephant House, memories of a whimsical artist". The Record (Bergen County). p. T1. Retrieved October 16, 2012., 2. James Sullivan (February 6, 2011). "From the Cape, a view of Edward Gorey. Remembering an artist of gleeful contradictions". Boston Globe. p. 4. Retrieved October 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help) Actully, The Elephant House might be better as a DAB page given The Elephant House (Edinburgh Café) and the two other elephant houses (and also the generic term of elephant house being what the enclosures at zoos are called). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist I came upon this after stumbling upon Sarahs talk page and I must say that her rational given there strongly suggests that this was more a supervote than an appropriate close. Relisting seems the best course to allow her to put forward the case as a regular !vote. AIRcorn (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Leroux (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was asked off-wiki to come out of hiding and review this deletion discussion. For the same reasons that I consider the IRC discussions to be bad policy and anti-wiki, I declined. Any review of the decision should be conducted here, in the open and subject to the review of the entire community. Having said that, I will respect the privacy wishes of the requestor and make a procedural nomination in his/her name.

As long as I'm opening the DRV nomination, I may as well also share my own review and findings. I am a strong believer that Voting is evil and that XfD closures must be more than mere nose-counting. It can, however, be appropriate to try to summarize the opinions in a contentious debate. This was an ugly debate, poorly formatted and with comments and rebuttals frequently posted out of order. I had to do an edit-by-edit review to really understand the debate.

I find delete opinions offerred by IRWolfie, Steven J. Anderson and William M. Connolley. I find keep opinions offerred by ShowTimeAgain, anon 109.154.26.60, Africangenesis, Pbenken, Cliff482, FurrySings, Ghosts Ghouls and Uzma Gamal. (Gene93k, anon 174.50.64.32 and Dragons flight made procedural edits or comments but did not express a clear opinion either way.)

Four of those arguing to keep the article were suspiciously new accounts. Further, I find evidence of personal attacks, open hostility and bad-faith editing on both sides of the debate. For example, Ghosts Ghouls left a somewhat pejorative comment. IRWolfie blanked the comment entirely. I endorse WP:NPA but 1) redaction should not be executed by a party in the dispute and 2) that means of executing it had the effect of hiding the non-pejorative part of the comment. Blanking was an over-reach and an abuse of WP:NPA. The incivility in this debate and the apparent inability to assume good faith was distressing.

Looking at the merits of the debate, it boils down to a notability question. Several editors argued that the subject fails the general notability standard. Few sources were presented to rebut that assertion. However, GNG suffers from two weaknesses in this case. First, it is subject to "foreigner bias". GNG's inherent reliance on english sources has a known tendency to undercount sources for non-english topics (in this case, a French academic). Second, GNG works poorly for academics generally, hence the existence of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Several editors argued in the debate that the subject meets criteria 2 and/or 3 of that standard. In particular, evidence was presented allegedly from the subject's estate showing that he was the recient of at "Chevalier in the Ordre des Palmes Academiques". While not perfect evidence, I find the assertion that the image is a forgery to be implausible. If someone wanted to go to that much trouble to forge a document, they would do more and better than that.

Not explicitly stated but argued by implication, the subject met criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC through the scholarly citation count. That assertion was disputed but not, in my opinion, debated adequately during the deletion discussion. Oddly, no one appears to have checked the french version of the biography for sources. Several links offered there do appear to support the assumption of notability (at least one interview by mainstream media, for example) though my French is inadequate to be sure.

WilyD finally closed the debate as "delete" on the basis of WP:N and discounting the arguments about WP:ACADEMIC. My tally does not substantiate that closure. Even after throwing out the suspicious accounts, the closest I can get is a "no consensus" decision.

Overturn to no consensus and restore. Rossami (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - external canvassing took place here, at a minimum. Any head count is, I think, a lost cause. There's some subsequent suggestion that although he appears to fail WP:N, he may pass WP:ACADEMIC - in the original discussion, I don't think the case was made. The French Wikipedia apparently AfD'd him to no consensus [1], though je sais seulement un peu de francais, alors, I can't really do a straight comparison of their inclusion standards to ours, but it's not clear the keep arguments there would really be sufficient here - it comes across as a subjective argument about how significant a scholar he was.
• A lot might hinge on the Golden palm point, which wasn't well discussed, and so pretty up in the air; There are about 7500 people who're such knights appointed annually [2], for what it's worth. WilyD 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The canvassing was quite extensive, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ShowTimeAgain/Archive for a list. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The discussion you link to includes a CheckUser assessment that the accounts you complained about were not in fact related. While the possibility of meatpuppetry was not (and can never be) disproven, that discussion does not provide evidence that canvassing occurred at all, much less that it was "extensive". Wikipedia is an open source. Other blogs and forums are allowed to reuse our content (even if we later decide to delete it) and are most explicitly allowed to comment upon our processes. Complaining about a deletion nomination is not the same as asking others to run to Wikipedia to do something about it. Accusations of canvassing are quite serious and should not be made so lightly. Rossami (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing is clear, the very reason this DRV is semi-protected is because the canvassing is clear. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My tally does not substantiate that closure. Even after throwing out the suspicious accounts, the closest I can get is a "no consensus" decision - this makes no sense. It isn't a vote; your tally is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let me be more explicit for you. The required standard for deletion is rough consensus among established editors citing policy-based reasons to keep or delete a page. The only policy in question at the AfD was notability and neither those arguing to keep or delete disputed that that was the proper question. The answer turned merely on the balancing of subjective opinions about whether the subject met one or more of the criteria in that policy. Three established editors argued that it did not. Four established editors argued that it did. After throwing out the ad-hominems and irrelevant pejoratives, the weight of argument was in my opinion slightly in favor of deletion but not enough to rise to the level of "rough consensus" as we use the term here at Wikipedia. Others may disagree with that assessment but to say that it "makes no sense" is either to willfully ignore Wikipedia policy and precedent on closing deletion discussions or to be unable to view the debate impartially. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We allow substantial latitude to closers dealing with irregularities such as external canvassing. I'm not convinced that this close is outside that discretion. T. Canens (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit history and comment, it looks like you considered your vote for all of two minutes. How about criterion #3?--Africangenesis (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse More off-wiki activity I see. This isn't a vote count as you have taken it to be. Secondly, his citation count isn't particularly high. If you had read my rebuttal you would see I countered examples of books with 30 citations with a book with a 1000 citations. The award was for education, are you saying he is a notable as an educator but not as a researcher? Secondly, the award appears to be given to many individuals each year. Ghost ghouls is a blocked sockpuppet ,see where I mentioned the WP:DUCK in removing it: [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, precisely per T. Canens. I'd like to address the nominator's mention of the French counterpart to this article; my French is sufficient to check it and its sources, and I can confirm that in my opinion the various claims of notability are a complete load of bollocks. (Addendum: I do accept that he's an academic with a doctorate and that he's published various books. This doesn't make him a significant figure in climatology.)—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These authors disagree with your last statement [4][5][6] [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they don't. They're merely academics who've cited his paper. Do you have any idea how easy it is to write something that academics cite in their papers? I've personally done it several times, and I'm pretty far from notable.—S Marshall T/C 08:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, I had to check to see whether any of my papers have been cited in Nature (sadly the answer is no, it was all just MNRAS, ApJ, AJ, and a minor journal or two that I was unfamiliar with.) Since canvassing meant I essentially had to close by arugments alone, I completely discounted the "cited four times in Nature". WilyD 08:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Different authors felt the need to mention Leroux's Thesis work in their respective Nature papers as a requisite piece of knowledge. Your own academic anecdotes here are irrelevant.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD, that is a complete non sequitur, canvassing does not produce citations in Nature.--Africangenesis (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like many people, I often illustrate a point with an anecdote. You may forget this, but there are real people behind all the screen names here. (And canvassing for citations is an occasional practice among academics, although the canvassing relevant to this discussion only meant that I had to give little to no weight to the !votes at the AfD, and close more by the strength of arguments that I normally would. And "He's been cited four times in Nature" is a terrible argument. Throngs of the unwashed masses have been cited four times in Nature. It just would've been easier to illustrate if I could say I'd been cited four times in Nature.) WilyD 05:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD, somehow I do not forget there are real people behind the screen! The work referenced in Nature is a comprehensive thesis on the Climate of Africa published with the support of WMO. This is not a secondary paper. Context is important here.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• InAstronomy and astrophysics, ApJ is the highest ranking of all posszible journals, and MNRAS and AJ are of almost equal prestige. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not really. Nature (and Science) are more highly ranked/prestigious/whatever journals that include significant Astronomy content, although on a "I was cited in" context, I don't see much difference between Nature, Science, ApJ, AJ, MNRAS, A&A, ICARUS, or whoever else. Writing an article - yes. Getting a citation? Whoop di do. WilyD 05:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review -- and considering some previous problems, protected for 10 days DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I did not engage in the previous AfD , & tend to avoid this subject, but has anyone checked for whether there are substantial book reviews for 2 or more of his 3 books, in which case he would meet WP:AUTHOR? In practice it's a much looser criterion than WP:PROF., and very specifically does not require any expertise of any sort in the field in which the person writes, negating most of the delete arguments. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been substantial subsequent discussion, mostly on my talk page User_talk:WilyD#Leroux, User_talk:WilyD#Strange_Marcel_Leroux_decision, User_talk:WilyD#Formal_request_to_reverse_your_decision_on_Marcel_Leroux_as_recommended_before_requesting_deletion_review - the only source it's been suggested is substantial is: [8], for those who can read Highbeam articles. It was mentioned right at the end of the AfD. If there's anything else, nobody's found it. WilyD 06:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per T. Canens. No legitimate reason is given for overturning the deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The arguments for WP:PROF were weak. Those for WP:GNG even weaker. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We regularly keep full professors just for being full professors. And we keep people with h-index much lower than this subject. I disagree with such arbitrary criteria, but it is clear to me that they are not being evenly applied here. Gigs (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes you think he was a prof, let alone full? The thing claiming to be his cert calls him "Monsieur" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• [9] It says professor on the page for the lab he was the director for. His title of professor is also on the first page of all his peer reviewed papers. Gigs (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats a fairly dodgy page. After all, it asserts he is *still* prof, now. However, if his papers say it, its likely William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Long-winded filing that really doesn't say much of anything. This is a topic area rife with socks, SPAs, and agenda-pushers on all sides, this is just the latest battleground in all that. There is no fault to be found in the closing admin's actions. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Endorse: for years the page was just being improved to the satisfaction of all concerned. Deletion request was an unprovoked attack. Permanent questioning of certificate authenticity, professional qualifications by an editor who first introduced the derogatory terms "global warming deniers" shows the deletion request was ideologically motivated. Such editing practices are in fact breeding battlegrounds, as if Oxfordians deleted the years when Cambridge won the rowing races and vice versa. This is ludicrous and unfit of the goal of a free encyclopedia.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - This whole deletion discussion is making Leroux notable as a martyr for climate deniers[10]. Leroux's Global Warming book [11] alone makes him notable. It's still commanding high prices [12]. If it was his only offering, I would say to change the name of the article to be the book title. Yet, there's his textbook which seems to still be in print, and all those citations provided by Africangenesis. Bring back the article. The unpopularity of Leroux's point of view should be seen as a reason to retain, not delete the article. JethroElfman (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His textbook English second edition was published in 2010 [13].ShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn From WP:Academic these criteria are to be applied:

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General Notes section, which follows.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Discussion) From google scholar, Leroux has 67 pubs, and 617 citations. His H-index is 9 and his I10-index is 8. Marcel Leroux is far above average, likely in the top 1% of his field. Climate Science wasn't specifically listed, it is a multi-disciplinary field, but for the two closest fields from this reference, the citation threshold for being in the top 1% of scientists is 337 in environment and ecology. In Geosciences it is 538. [14]. It isn't just the number of articles and citations. I think a fair conclusion would be that he was accepted authoritatively as France's if not the world's leading expert on the climate of Northern Africa, France and the Iberian peninsula. His "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" appears to be an enduring contribution.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Discussion) The fact that he was the director or head of a laboratory can be argued to meet both or either criteria 5 and 6. As was mentioned above, the language barrier makes this difficult for the english wikipedia, it is difficult to even get the name right. In english it would be "Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment." But in the French "du Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques, Environnement" or "du Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques et Environnement" and even some alternate wordings all get hits corresponding to Leroux. Jacques Comby appears to be the current head of the laboratory, or one of its professors.

Forgot to mention he had been Director of the Centre of Research in Tropical Africa Climatology, CRCTA (Dakar, Senegal)--Africangenesis (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Discussion) Once again the language barrier comes into play. While he has thousands of hits of blog level criteria, most of his articles in english appear to be invited commentary by him. An argument can be made that the newspaper articles that he is the author of, are notable, because they are not just letters to the editor, but invited commentary, not extended to just anyone. So once again language and cultural differences are a barrier. The French newspapers of the stature of a NY Times or Washington Post or WSJ are not as open, they are paywalled, but I have found several hits which appear to be articles about Leroux or quoting him.

• Des cyclones aussi nombreux mais plus puissants
• Un phénomène météorologique rare mais pas exceptionnel
• Noël au balcon
• Débat sur réchauffement de la Terre
• Le climat change plus vite que jamais
• Questions sur un climat fou, fou, fou
• L'écologisme à l'épreuve
• Un climat de plus en plus agité
• L'ordinateur est expert, mais pas prophète

Leroux may well be notable by the general criteria, not just the WP:Academic criteria

An objective review of the history around the AfD, and subsequent attacks on the sandbox, and referenced files, and the failure to reverse despite previous discussion of all this material, leads to the conclusion that the AfD itself was WP:BATTLE. --Africangenesis (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very skeptical of your citation numbers, mainly because there seem to be other academics named "Marcel Leroux" (an engineer, a medical doctor, etc.), and very many people who abbreviate as "M Leroux", so it is difficult to isolate the contributions of this Marcel Leroux from the works of people with similar names. If you have a good way of doing that, please show how. Beyond that, you can't compare Google Scholar times cited to the Incites citation thresholds constructed by Thomson. The Thomson numbers, based on their ISI citation database, are more restrictive about what they count as a citation (i.e. other peer-reviewed academic papers and books in their citation index), and hence will generally be systematically lower than Google counts. For example, Leroux's book: "Global Warming: Myth or Reality" is reportedly cited 102 times according to Google, but the ISI only records 7 academic citations based on their criteria. The MPH paper did alright, 52 citations in ISI (64 in Google), but the next best Leroux paper I can find in ISI is "Evidence of atmosphere paleocirculation..." with 14, and then nothing above 10. In other words, as Thomson would count it I don't think he gets anywhere near their 1% threshold. Dragons flight (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the appended citation section below. The way I got google scholar to provide the whole tally for me, was by going into some kind of "my citations" mode. It does the tally and outputs in a table format with each article title being a hyperlink to the specific article with a "cited by" hyperlink. Here is that "cited by" hyperlink for the first article [15]. I had to cut and paste and slightly reformat all the information I appended below. Apologies for its relative unreadability.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The deletion reviewer judged fairly, in my opinion. Valid objections were brought up about gaping holes in the references, with falsehoods pointed out. The topic clearly failed WP:N, a hard and fast rule. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With a little investigation, I found Leroux to be clearly notable enough not to warrant a pressurised demand for deletion. What's not been highlighted here AFAICT is the fact that there are strong reasons some people here do NOT want Leroux mentioned - because he wrote a whole textbook, in a class of its own, showing how wonky Climate Science has become with its "dangerous manmade warming" memes. Personally I was grateful for the opportunity this fracas afforded, to "meet" Prof Leroux at some depth and to appreciate both his science (the important Mobile Polar High concept that has clearly taken root in Climate Science), his general competence in producing what is still regarded as a classic textbook (Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate) and his outspoken defence of decent scientific practice that he (along with other top scientists eg Paul Reiter, Nils-Axel Mörner, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Nobel prizewinner Kary Mullis) saw being trashed with the politicization of Climate Science from the nineties on. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: DRV is not the place to rehash the AfD discussion. The AfD was closed well within guidelines for dealing with biographies of living persons. Exceptions are made when sources are introduced at DRV that clearly show the subject to be notable. That is not the case here. I have no objection to an article being recreated in suitable reliable sources are found. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 errors, new evidence is not a rehash, Marcel Leroux is dead, being in the top 1% for citations in his field is pretty clear, this detail has been established since the closing. --Africangenesis (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection Upon reviewing the history, I found this hidden delete of one of my arguments by User:William M. Connolley. [16] This certainly taints the original closure and the process as a whole.--Africangenesis (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh FFS, yours and his edits were within 2 minutes of each other, it was likely just an edit conflict. Don't be a drama-monger, just go restore it. Tarc (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the way I resolve edit conflicts.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore Notable academic. Notable enough that disagreement with his viewpoint has inspired a desire to delete his bio by others in his field of expertise. He meets enough of the requirements to have his bio included. As such the deletion process was tainted and it should be restored. Notability is not hard to achieve. --DHeyward (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am not seeing an abuse of processes, well within acceptable closing. Mtking ^(edits) 19:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 listed reasons for a DRV, perhaps you should review #3. --Africangenesis (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure was well within process, sources are just not there. - MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 listed reasons for a DRV, perhaps you should review #3. Which sources are not there?--Africangenesis (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: No evidence provided that closing admistrator acted improperly. DRV is not the place to continue AfD discussions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 listed reasons for a DRV, perhaps you should review #3.--Africangenesis (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I had to paste this in from a table format web report from google scholar. This time the result is 618 citations, 200 since 2007, h-index 9 overall 6 since 2007, i10 index is 8 overall 5 since 2007. Google scholar did the totaling, I have not independently counted. --Africangenesis (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations below are in descending order of the number of citations, with the number before the year being the number of citations. Towards the bottom, by the time there is only one citation, the number before the year may be the page number, because for some reason google scholar doesn't put a number there. So that you can see the citation pattern, the first few numbers of citations in descending order are 137, 102, 75, 68, 49, 29, 21
• (I replaced with a table, for easier reading --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• I collapsed the table and moved it to be in chronological order in the discussion to help give a better persective on its influence in the discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The original decision may well have been warranted, based upon the information available at the time, but substantial additional citations have been identified, and the subject is notable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I picked one source, Global warming-myth or reality?: the erring ways of climatology M Leroux Springer 2005. The majority of the citations are not to academic publications, see [17]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we are judging here the quality of the scientific work or publications of Mr. Leroux. What we are doing is trying to assess whether he was "notable" enough to deserve an entry in WP. The fact that he has published a few books, which are still in print, and have been cited in the works of other, makes him notable, independently of the scientific quality of his work. Udippuy (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he's an academic we expect the citations to be from other academics in his field. His books are not well cited. The entire reason we were looking at the citations was because of this criteria of WP:ACADEMIC: 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the measure we have. Notice that for each publication, google scholar orders those citing it by their number of citations. His tropical Africa climate stuff is rock solid in that regard. Perhaps accumulating the number of 2nd generation citations would be a good idea, but then we would need statistics to understand the meaning of those, right now, with the measure we have, he is in the top 1%, there is no reason to think he wouldn't be under a better measure.--Africangenesis (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing on the plus side as far as citation count is that almost all his citations are for works where he is the primary author. Many scientists citations are inflated by being added on as an author while having contributed very little, perhaps just because they were the head of the department that had an established name or connections.--Africangenesis (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, you're focusing on just one of the several conditions that can justify the notability under WP:Academic. My feeling is that while Leroux ranks low in the various different WP:Academic conditions (he was a respected academic, but not an internationally recognized genius; he published some important works, but not recently- however he wrote climatology manuals that are still published in English after his death; he took part in the public debate about global warming, although only with a small echo in the english speaking world) he's still important and notable enough to deserve an entry in a serious encyclopedia.Udippuy (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, please correct me if I am wrong, is that subject specific criteria are used to supplement, not replace the GNG. The rationale being that the GNG guidelines might be too, well, general for some classes of people or topics, and better to identify subject specific wording, rather than try to write GNG in a way to cover the universe. For example, academics are supposed to produce academic articles, which may be primary material rather than secondary. We don't want to exclude academics, who because of their field, may be well-respected in their community, yet not have substantial mention in secondary sources. Consequently, the Academic guideline "counts" material that might otherwise not strictly meet the requirements of GNG. However, it shouldn't be used to exclude material that doesn't meet the narrow focus of Academic. Thus, I find your implicit exclusion of citations that are "not to academic publications" misplaced.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is self defeating, if he doesn't have a large number citations to academic publications, then that's a sign that he is not well respected in his academic community particularly more than others in his field. Thus he fails ACADEMIC. GNG has never been met. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep I consider him relatively marginal for a scientist, but clearly above the line. But he was a full professor at a major university, and we have generally accepted that as indicating the judgment of his colleagues for notability. The exceptions have been when there is a special reason, such as being in a field like education about which there are some doubts here concerning the quality of work in the subject. There is a special reason here too, and I haven noticed it before, and I will not let it pass without comment. If he were a supporter of the present consensus on global warming, or had worked on some unrelated subject with a similar academic record, I doubt there would have been a serious challenge to the article. Now, I think climate change denial a heading of one's head in the sand, either for motive of greed or perversity, or just persistence in misunderstanding. While I accept the possibility of well-intentioned academic skeptics, I approach their results expecting to see what is wrong with them. As compared to anti-evolutionism, it's not as patently stupid, but much more dangerous. I therefore judge that when a situation comes here where my view might be biased, to actively try to resist it, and for a scientific maverick of any sort whatsoever, I will say notable if it is possible to do so. Some miscellaneous comments I thing should not pass without comment: 1 that he had not published important works recently--notability in the past is still notability 2 that [18] above is the sort of edit conflict that I or most people would have immediately noticed and immediately corrected. 3 the argument that a b ook being reprinted is not secondary evidence for notability because he wrote the book & therefor its a primary source ignores the fact that it is the publisher, not the author, who thought it would sell well enough to be worth the investment-- it's like saying that best seller status does not indicate notability for both the book & the author. 4 The continued use of a some of his works as textbooks seems to be ignored--its one of WP:PROF basic standards. 5 I really deplore the personal attacks by the supporter of the article, but I can see how he was pushed into them by the insistence of some of the opposers in ignoring the basic evidence and in using mush stricter standards than we generally use. He apparently thinks people here are prejudiced against him. I know the attempt of the scientific to not just refute, but suppress false theories is based on the extensive irrational opposition by the ignorant and prejudiced against valid work, but counter-bias does not excuse bias. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professors are not typically notable, WP:ACADEMIC clarifies this: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). ... Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability." Being a professor at Jean Moulin University Lyon 3 isn't comparable to being a named chair at Oxford for example. When has having a book being republished every been a sign of notability; you haven't shown that criterion 4 was met which says: "Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." Having 30 citations doesn't mean it's widely used. I've shown examples with 1000 citations for a book (by an academic who doesn't have an article). If you are a climate change denial scientist, you are more likely to have an article on wikipedia because there are POV pushers willing to make it and push for it. Most academics of a similar level don't get mentioned (for example there are numerous professors and lecturers at my university who meet the low requirements here). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, WP:ACADEMIC explains:

"The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?"

A professor who is in the top 1% in citations, clearly stands out and is obviously not "average". This does not mean there are not a lot of professors in the world, so there may be plenty of others in the top 1% who have particularly well reference papers. In physics it takes over 2000 citations to be in the top 1%, but WP:ACADEMIC notes that the criteria very greatly by field, I reported the criteria for field's closest to Leroux's. He meets other criteria also.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its already been pointed out to you, by DF above, that Leroux isn't in the top 1% William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, DF didn't know how to do the scholar google search, I have posted the appended citations showing the publications and citations since then. He hasn't questioned those.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The academic citation count is quite low. Even including the non-academic citations, it's still just average. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse - no new arguments or data have been presented in this DRV William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I made no comments on this AfD at all in any venue - but find the blanket finding of "fails notability" in the face of substantial mentions in reliable sources to be inadequate. Wikipedia is surely big enough to have biographies of "dastardly people", and I see no reason why it is not reasonable to retain this person's BDP. Collect (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

substantial mentions in reliable sources? The rest of us seem to have missed those. Could you point them out? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is not the place for extended arguments - but one book was given a long review in BAMS which described Leroux as "professor emeritus of climatology in Lyon, France". His theories may be wrong, but Wikipedia does not have a "biographies of people who are notable but wrong do not belong." [19]. In fact, many folks who are completely wrong have Wikipedia articles. Need more? I rather thought you would find BAMS to be a WP:RS for such purposes. It is, moreover. clear that the reviewer (Michael A. Fortune - I think you knew him perhaps?) felt Leroux was notable, and worthy of more than an en passant review. Collect (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One book review is now inflated to "substantial mentions in reliable sources"? "Need more?" - yes, certainly we need more. Wikipedia is surely big enough to have biographies of "dastardly people" - this is a strawman, because no-one has proposed that as a reason for deletion William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAMS would seem to be a pretty good source - and the review is extended. One editor, for some outre reason, suggested I am here because of "global warming" - an area is which I have a minuscule interest. I am here only because of the criteria for "notability" being seen to be misapplied on Wikipedia. We have people who are "notable" for "penis size" for goodness sake! Yet where we have a person with multiple books published by reliable source publishers (not best-sellers at a $300 price tag from Springer), we seem to think that such books and articles are insufficient? As I said - the man could be Satan incarnate, but as far as I can tell he is sufficiently notable to have his biography on Wikipedia. I found the suggestion that we could have an article about his writings <g> but not one of the person himself to be an interesting proposal, indeed. I rather think that takes the cake for "logic" here <g>. We have many articles on Lyndon LaRouche and other folks who are "wrong" in this world - there is little reason in "the sum of human knowledge" to excise an article on a person who is as notable as Leroux certainly appears to be. And if he were a Scientologist, my opinion would be the same. Collect (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is another straw man argument. The reason for deletion was not that he was wrong, but that he is not notable, he doesn't meet GNG, he doesn't meet ACADEMIC. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus was clear that there is not enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Marcel Leroux to maintain a stand alone article that covers an account of Leroux's life as a topic. However, from the "Marcel Leroux citation information from google scholar" list below and other references brought out during the AfD, it seem clear that there is enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Marcel Leroux to maintain a stand alone article that covers an account of Leroux's writings as a topic. Feel free to post a Writings of Marcel Leroux article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a modest amount of citations is not the same thing as having significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the fact that 618 citations put Leroux in the top 1% of scientists the top 1% threshold is 337 in environment and ecology. In Geosciences it is 538. [20].--Africangenesis (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address Dragons flight's point that ISI 'are more restrictive about what they count as a citation' than Google scholar? If ISI and Google scholar employ different standards, you are comparing apples and oranges. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. By Google count, I'm apparently twice as notable as Leroux, and I have ten times more citations than I need to be in the top 1% (which in computer science apparently has a limit of 123). But Google is notoriously generous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that AfricanGenesis has been indefinitely topic banned via Arbitration enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Marcel Leroux topic is a "topic of Climate Change," then Africangenesis's topic ban (also this) would seem to apply to this DRV discussion since the ban applies on all pages of Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the 618 quantity of citations that are important. Rather, it is the quantity of prose attached to the 618 citations that may count towards WP:GNG. Since those reliable sources are not writing an account of Leroux's life, they don't support a biography of Marcel Leroux topic. The Marcel Leroux article is the wrong way to present the reliable source information on Marcel Leroux. A Writings of Marcel Leroux topic would be a better approach once the deletion of Marcel Leroux is endorsed at DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense. utter nonsense, consistently rejected in all applicable cases. Scientists are notable for their work, not their life, just as artists for their art, or athletes for their athletics. We have no hesitation in keeping articles on athletes about whom we know nothing whatever except their name & athletic records, nor composers about whom we know nothing whatever except their compositions, or generals about whom we know nothing except their victories, or politicians about whom we know nothing except that they won an election. In many such cases we don't even know the birth dates or death dates. Normally, unless the person is so famous that people do want to know about the details of their life, we even remove from articles minor aspects of their biography not connected with notability. The only two exceptions I can think of is members of royal houses who are notable for their mere existence and society figures who are noted for for the personal details of their life being widely reported. (And in each such case there are usually objections). People otherwise are notable for something, and it's that which needs to be demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. For goodness' sake, people, the box at the top of this page says explicitly that DRV should not be used "because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". The consensus was clear that this individual doesn't meet the notability threshold; let the decision stand. Prioryman (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]