Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Marcel Simonet


 * 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. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexandre Marcel Simonet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This may be a hoax, but if this individual and his book are real, we need to verify that and, following that, verify that he is notable. None of the sources that might actually mention him are accessible online, and the ISBN for the book is "invalid" according to our book sources. A search for Alexandre Simonet in Google books finds no related matches. Google found nothing clearly connected that was reliable. This AFD results from an OTRS complaint (2013011010006681) alleging that the article is being used to perpetuate fraud. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched the Bibliothèque nationale de France, British Library, Library of Congress, and Amazon.com catalogs for various terms, and couldn't find anything close to his book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of the hoax question, this is a literatim copy of this blog post, posted by none other than one "Alexandre Simonet". הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This person appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage, and we simply cannot take the chance on possible hoaxes, because we do not want another hoax at Wikipedia for people to read for five years. TBrandley (what's up) 22:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Two of the two actual ISBNs there are fake. Kill it with fire. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Based on the evidence no need to wait the seven days. Wizardman  15:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ""Not Delete"" The ISBN was introduced in 1970, the books of Marcel Alexandre Simonet have been published before. If someone, for contributing to the page, he made ​​some mistakes in the transcription of the codes, it does not mean that the character in question, public and well known in France, is a hoax. Even my personal library is full of books by famous authors, which do not appear on the Internet and do not have the ISBN, so I think happens in public libraries throughout the world. All other sources that follow, regardless of the mistakes made by those who wanted to help but do not know how reliable sources and are known in the academic world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramanico (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)  — Caramanico (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I also found this source, published by ANSA- http://ansanotizie.altervista.org/.
 * If someone made a "mistake" by giving false ISBNs for books that never should have had them, what are the same mistakes doing on Mr. Simonet's own blog, linked above? (Note that the blog post linked predates the Wikipedia article by several months.) Surely Mr. Simonet knows whether or not his books have ISBNs, and if they do, what they are? הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Hasirpad,The blog is not from Simonet, but someone who created it on him, using the wrong information on the wiki page. We do not delete the page on Madonna, if a fan opens up a blog and write on it, false information about her, right?
 * Caramanico:
 * The blog claims to be Simonet's own blog
 * The blog post is older than the Wikipedia article, so nothing was taken "using the wrong information on the wiki page" if there was no Wikipedia page to take from. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the article in the blog that you say, bears the date of October, and there is only a screenshot of the wiki page ... check yourself!http://attacchidipanicoilmanuale.blogspot.it/2012_10_01_archive.html Caramanico
 * Please see the link I gave above; the post is dated July 2012, but the Wikipedia article is from the end of September 2012. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can clarify this. You write, "The ISBN was introduced in 1970, the books of Marcel Alexandre Simonet have been published before." This man was purportedly born in 1954 (so he would have been 16 in 1970), experienced his first panic attack in or after a 1987 diving incident and developed the system of which he wrote subsequent to that. Can you explain how it would be possible that his books were published before 1970? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ""In addition,"" the situation is difficult to explain, but there is someone for personal gain, is trying to discredit the name of Alexandre Simonet. It 'possible that I'm wrong, but I'm sure that some of the moderators of wikipedia en, has received a report from Italy recently, in which he asked to delete the page. I'm wrong? If I'm right, this confirms my hypothesis. And if I'm not mistaken even more, that person wrote something about this same topic. The friendly moderators, could control the user Colapenisula please? I am using this new account, because I lost my old password and username, but in the past I have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia Italy, and I think the way I use wiki, confirms this. You could say the same about these suspicious users who have never used wiki, except to make complaints? comment added by Caramanico (talk •
 * Delete Let's not take chances on possible hoaxes. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 04:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ""Not Delete"" There are thousands of wiki pages in the same conditions, dealing with celebrities. What do we do? I took one of these at random: Jonathan Latimer. This crime novelist, was in his time, almost as famous Agatha Christie. But the page does not contain even an ISBN, just a note under it, which points to an online catalog, which as far as we know, it could be a fake. We can not delete all of the pages, each time a user who subscribes to wiki, only to report something or someone is bothering him professionally. Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have struck through your "not delete" because you are only allowed to make a recommendation like that once, though you may comment more often. The fact that other unsatisfactory articles exist is irrelevant to this discussion, because it is not a reason for allowing more - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Caramanico, the motives of the person who raised a concern about this article do not matter, it will not be deleted just because someone complained. But that does make us look closely at it, to see how it stands up to Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" and WP:Notability guideline, which requires evidence of: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."


 * The article could probably be speedy-deleted as a copyright violation of http://attacchidipanicoilmanuale.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/origins-of-positive-self-talk-against.html, which is dated 12 July 2012 and is signed "Pubblicato da Alexandre Simonet a 20:28", but then permission might be given and we would have to go through this again; better to complete this AfD.


 * Verifiability: the false ISBNs, given in a blog post signed by Simonet, are extremely suspicious. The David Bryan book does exist (ISBN 9781462829637), though a Google Books search within it for "Simonet" finds nothing. But the article claims that Simonet's books were published by Gallimard and NY Pocket Books, yet there is no trace of them in Worldcat, Google Books, Amazon or any of the standard book lists.


 * Notability: Google searches don't show me any substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. There is plenty there, but all blog and forum sites like blogspot.com and wordpress. What I see is energetic self-promotion, but not notability


 * Conclusion: I do not know whether there is a hoax here, but it fails both WP:V and WP:N and should be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I stop here .. do not want to look like a Don Quixote fighting the windmills. "Surely," you will know what to do. Just one question: Now what do I do with the four-five books of Simonet, that I keep in my library, all without ISBN because too old, they have to throw in the trash, or can I leave them on the sidewalk because they do not exist and do not bother someone?Caramanico (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're familiar with verifiability policy, but I'm afraid Wikipedia can't anybody's word for it that something exists without reliable sources to prove it. You are welcome to do whatever you like with any books you may have by Simonet, but I'm afraid that your assertion that you have such books is simply not usable for us. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Monriddengirl, is also part of the policies of Wikipedia, writing sentences like this? "that the article is being used to perpetuate fraud" I do not know in yours, but in my country, write accusations not supported by evidence, leads to unpleasant Legal Consequence. the offense is called, slander and defamation. I do not think it is appropriate to write things that could cause, or problems to you or wiki. It 's just a suggestion of course, but I think it should be, you just delete the last sentence of your first post, so just to prove that wikipedia is above, personal assumptions, but it is based only on the facts, as you have rightly pointed out, when you reminded me that here are some rules to follow. Best regards. Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Caramanico, Moonriddengirl was simply stating the concerns that somebody else had raised. I would suggest that you withdraw the above statement. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 03:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Automatic Strikeout, Who raised these concerns? I have not read anything like that in this discussion. So it seems to be a statement of Moonriddengirl. I was only a suggestion and not a statement. I can easily delete my message, in fact anyone can do it, but it should also Mooriddengirl. The statement that you advise me to read is certainly important, but I do not think it most important of the Criminal Code of nations. I suggest you give it a look. Caramanico (talk
 * Perhaps it would have been more clear to you had you quoted my actual sentence instead of simply a fragment: "This AFD results from an OTRS complaint (Ticket:2013011010006681) alleging that the article is being used to perpetuate fraud." WP:OTRS is our email response system; it received a letter of complaint which is held private, both in the actual details of the letter and the identity of the sender. These details have no bearing on this conversation, particularly as there is nothing in my open regarding precisely who is alleged by our correspondent to be perpetuating a fraud. That doesn't matter. We are concerned here mainly with documentable evidence to support the accuracy of the article and the notability of the subject. As a final note, please be careful not to quote people out of context or in such a way that it implies they have said something they have not; doing so is against our practices. You may also wish to review our policy against legal threats. These are not helpful in discussing issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If we decide to delete some items, because we believe unfounded, well we do, but we are not allowed to make insults, accusations or judgments heavy or slander towards them.Caramanico (talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 16 January 2013‎
 * Moonriddengirl, Well, then let's get back to the discussion, which is centered on the fact of considering the character worthy of note or not. And delete all other considerations, including your own. If you do it, do me a favor, because I do not allow myself to delete anything on wikipedia, not even what I write. I have great respect for this extraordinary resource.Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Until someone can provide some proof that it's not a hoax, it should be deleted. If someone can provide some proof, then I guess I'd have to look at that proof in order to see if they meet the WP:GNG or not. At this rate though, I don't see how it could. Sergecross73   msg me   20:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax, failing WP:V. Just about every link I spot-checked in the references didn't pan out. As I'm not currently at school, I can't check behind the paywall, but given that Google Books hasn't even heard of this guy as an author, odds of hoax are very high. Ray  Talk 17:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ""Not delete speedy"" I found something if it can be useful http://iccuopacitaliabooks.altervista.org/ HIPATHIA (talk20:32,January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIPATHIA79 (talk • contribs)  — HIPATHIA79 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nice shot Hipathia, for me the Italian national catalog of library service, along with all other academic references from Lomosonov University of moscow, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and television appearances mentioned, are more than enough. This is the spirit and reason of existence of a multimedia encyclopedia, to be enriched by the experience and knowledge of everyone, otherwise we kept the old ones made ​​of paper encyclopedias, in which to decide the content, they did the usual elites.Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Curiously, the page that lists those numbers ( http://iccuopacitaliabooks.altervista.org/ to be precise) is an Altervista page, which seems to be a completely different domain from the ICCU ( http://www.iccu.sbn.it/opencms/opencms/it/ ) or the OPAC catalog linked from the official site ( http://www.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/free.jsp ). When I search for the author's name at the OPAC catalog they list, I don't get those results. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser. Caramanico, you should realise by now that we take verifiability seriously. That "OPAC" page is a fake, the genuine one here returns "Nessun risultato trovato" for "Alexandre Marcel Simonet" or "Positive Self Talk Against Panic". The ISBN numbers given on the fake OPAC page are different from the ones in the article, but they are still not valid ISBNs - invalid prefix, wrong checksum. When in a hole, it is best to stop digging: just accept that he is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and do not go on presenting "evidence" that just goes to confirm suspicions of a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete We have two books with false ISBN, a diagnostic coding manual which certainly isn't going to say anything about anyone, two journal articles which don't mention the author in abstract and cost a total of $266.00 to see in whole, the book supposedly published by the Library of Congress (??) which a prior commenter searched and couldn't find any mention of the author, and a bunch of vauge references to some sort of French documents. Definately not meeting WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gtwfan52,Here is the book that you say.http://books.google.it/books?id=D9fSW7-atRMC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Think+yourself+free+library+of+congress&source=bl&ots=yb1mHGk3G3&sig=0ThYXMJvEFLTMOmxy39oE9WWAMQ&hl=it&sa=X&ei=SBL3UKfvC8Lm4QSEvoGIBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Think%20yourself%20free%20library%20of%20congress&f=false Where have you seen these $ 266? Hipathia the user has found some traces, Why persist with this book by a certain David Bryan, who was quoted on the page dedicated to Simonet, just because in this book he mentions, Simonet and his method of treatment of panic attacks ?
 * Library of Congress is also written on this page of google books, anyway.Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Library of Congress" is written in every book published in the United States, or published for distribution in the United States. What is your point? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Possible WP:Frankenstein.-- Auric    talk  19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Everything else aside, notability has not been established. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "John CD", I do not know, I'm not who I reported the news. it is possible that the library service uses different host, who knows what their internal policies or the reasons that have led them to differentiate their database. or it could be a fake ... but so at this point I realized that there is a willingness to delete the entry, against any reasonable doubt. So I also vote for the immediate cancellation, hoping that no electromagnetic wave hits the planet in the future, because with this kind of mentality, I see very difficult to order the chaos that it would generate. I'm almost seventy years old, and I believe in the possibilities offered by the web, which is why I have learned to use the PC, and my life I made it, but in my time, when there was a dispute, we were going to analyze the cards and everything was resolved. Today I see that everything is based on the abstract, and even puts in doubt what the eyes can see. I hope that this technology, which allows this absurd way of thinking about the world, not explode in the hands of young people. I say this as his father and grandfather. Marcel Alexandre Simonet I have often seen on television, and I read his books. I know the character knows him throughout France and much of the Italians. That said, I greet you forever and go back to reading my books made ​​of paper and that smell of paper, much heavier than a few bits,and certainly more real and concrete, of what I saw here.Caramanico (talk
 * 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.