Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles-Edouard Levillain


 * 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 keep. Nice rescue work by User:Coolabahapple. Also it should be noted that the nominator did not offer a valid reason for deletion. MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles-Edouard Levillain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Creator of article has created an article about himself. Can be clearly seen from his Userpage and Username. If he thinks he is notable he can request an article or ask someone to write on for him! The article is also not written according to MoS guidelines (but that doesn't matter)  Varun FEB2003    06:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to draftspace: The subject of the article seems like he could be notable, but there is a lot of work that is needed to get it up to standard. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 08:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify; I agree with ME, the author should work on the article and then submit through AfC. There is possible notability for the subject and letting the author work on it in draft space is a good idea. Also, I would not be opposed to a delete closure. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 08:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Article now clearly shows notability due to good work from a couple of editors. Keep per Coolabahapple. - Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 02:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Drafitify or Delete I support both though the first one gains more preferance as per nom  Varun FEB2003    12:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have left a Twinkle COI warning on 's talk page, as nobody seems to have informed in that writing an autobiography was against policy. It might have been an idea to explain that and ask him to draftify the article before using up volunteer time with an AfD. Joe Roe (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as having received a well-known and significant award, Levillain received a Académie française Guizot Prize in 2011 for his book Vaincre Louis XIV : Angleterre - Hollande - France, histoire d'une relation triangulaire 1665-1688 - Prix Guozot Lauréats, also here are some book reviews - of Vaincre Louis XIV by The English Historical Review - "The present volume offers an original perspective on what might seem the familar themes of Anglo-Dutch, Anglo-French and Franco-Dutch rivalries, hostilities and co-operation from the 1660s into the 1680s.", also reviewed by The American Historical Review, and BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review - "This is an important book that provides a new interpretation of French foreign policy and strategic interests from the perspective of two of France’s rivals, England and Holland. .. For this reviewer, the importance of this book is how it should impact on historians of early modern British history, albeit it has an anglocentric focus." (with an award and 3 reviews this meets WP:NBOOK and could have its own article).
 * There are also reviews of Un glaive pour un royaume : la querelle de la milice dans l'Angleterre du XVIIe siècle by The American Historical Review - "Levillain’s exposition on the debate over the militia in the seemingly endless turmoil from 1603 to 1702 is both welcome and latitudinous. .. Such a thoroughly researched and meticulously conceived monograph deserves a wide audience.", of Cultural transfers France and Britain in the long eighteenth century (that contains La correspondance diplomatique dans l'Europe moderne (c.1550-c.1750): tentative de définition et problèmes de méthode) by Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century - "This multidisciplinary book moves beyond the classic concern with ‘influences’ of one author or culture on another. It presents a new understanding of the hidden international networks that sustained the Republic of Letters and of the synthesis that emerged through contacts and interaction between French and British culture.", of Vísperas de sucesión : Europa y la monarquía de Carlos II that contains La ruta de Flandes : el exilio bruselense del duque de York y la crisis de Exclusión (1679) by Hungarian Historical Review - "However, despite the importance of the political and strategical struggle for power, the War of Spanish Succession is not as well-known as other conflicts .. The volume under review attempts to fill this gap. The studies examine hidden processes of political decision-making .. The book offers an interdisciplinary introduction to the years of international political unrest between the Austrian Habsburgs and the Bourbons, two great dynasties opposed by their sense of honor and their pursuit of hegemony. Published by the Carlos de Amberes Foundation, the volume contains essays which are the fruit of several international research projects undertaken in collaboration with sixteen renowned scholars from Spain and other countries, such as Luis Ribot, Alfredo Floristán, Sánchez Belén and Joaquim Albareda from Spain and Davide Maffi from Italy and Charles-Édouard Levillain from France. .. In short, this book is noteworthy, as it constitutes a substantial contribution to the secondary literature on the last phase of Spanish Habsburgs, casting new light on this important moment in the emergence of modern Europe", of Fear, Exclusion and Revolution: Roger Morrice and Britain in the 1680s that contains London Besieged? The City’s Vulnerability during the Glorious Revolution by The Scriblerian and the Kit-Kats, oh, and also meets WP:GNG, i do acknowledge though, that the article needs work. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * IMPORTANT I wrote this article. But I used his name for the userpage&username... Sorry. I didn't know the standard for wikipedia pages, I changed the look and feel, hope this is ok now... Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianegd (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No you didn't The artical was created by Celevillain not you. If that is your alternate account please declare it properly as per guidelines given at Wp:Sock Puppetry  Varun  FEB2003    11:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Snow keep per WP:PROF. The reviews of his monographs that has provided show substantial impact in his field. Joe Roe (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to a snow keep based on fellowship of the Royal Historical Society (WP:PROF) and winning a Guizot Prize (#C2). Joe Roe (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me intruding on this as a Wikipedia amateur though a professional historian (University of St Andrews). I had cause to look up M. Levillain for correspondence with him about coming to the Continent next year, and found the disputed Wikipedia webpage. I do not quite understand your protocols, but I felt the need to join Wikipedia so I could contribute to this matter given it has taken a serious turn. As Professor of History at St Andrews specializing in a similar field to M. Levillain, I am very familiar with his work. I would like to confirm in the strongest possible terms that the contents of his webpage biography are truthful and scrupulous, and that M. Levillain is a historian who is highly respected in the UK, USA, Netherlands, France and Germany for his original scholarship and international engagement. In my judgment he is indeed worthy of a Wikipedia page. If I had been asked to write the biography of him, I could not have done a better job myself. I hope this satisfies the concerns held by some of the contributors to this debate. Guy Rowlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrhist (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not clear whether it was written by him, or by another editor who incorrectly thought it was appropriate to edit under the subject's user name. But in any case, he meets WP:PROF on the basis of his publications and awards, The only things still needing fixing in the article is the addition of the book reviews -(best done as references to his books), and, probably removal of the list of articles. notable as an historian is almost always on the basis of the published books, and articles should be included only if especially significant. Even in fields such as the sciences where notability is on the basis of the articles and the citation to them, we usually include only a list of the 4 or 5 most cited articles, unless we're dealing with someone truly world-famous, not just notable in hte ordinary way of a subject for a WP article.  DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.