Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etienne de Harven


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Etienne de Harven

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF criteria. While the article makes impressive claims about the subject's discoveries, these are sourced solely to his original papers. There do not appear to be any independent, reliable sources documenting any impact of this individual on the field of study. He did serve as president of the Microscopy Society of America in 1976, but this alone doesn't seem sufficient as a source of notability. Tagged with a request for independent sources since June without improvement. Google searches turn up many non-reliable sources tying the subject to AIDS denialism, but nothing that could be used to write an encyclopedic biography. MastCell Talk 21:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No independent reliable sources? Click on the scholar link and you will find 1000 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to have a GS h-index of 27 to pass WP:Prof. Also passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
 * These are two of my least favorite arguments, because they're divorced from the reality of actually building an encyclopedia. There is no h-index cut-off to satisfy WP:Prof. The h-index has a lot of limitations, particularly when Google Scholar is used to calculate it. Most importantly, it doesn't help build an article - without actual independent, reliable sources attesting to his impact, all we can say is: "Etienne de Harven is a researcher with an h-index of 27." To this point, it's probably worth noting the disclaimer at WP:PROF: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. I'm open to hearing how an h-index helps us write an encyclopedic article, or to hearing about new sources we can use to improve the article, but I think this disclaimer was written to address exactly this sort of argument. MastCell Talk 02:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The operation of Wikipedia is based on consensus. If you do not agree with policy guidelines of WP:Prof argue that on the policy pages. Please do not bring these arguments to AfD pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm fine with WP:PROF; I just don't agree with your application of it. First of all, I think that simply citing an h-index doesn't address criterion #1 in any meaningful way. Secondly, I think WP:PROF is explicitly clear that it's possible to meet the technical criteria but still be unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Both of those concerns are explicitly based on the existing guideline, and nowhere here have I suggested changing WP:PROF. If you have any comment on the actual substance of my concerns, I'd be happy to hear it. MastCell Talk 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete It's true he has a couple of articles at Google Scholar with more than 100 citations. But he is a co-author, listed somewhere in the middle of multiple author citations - neither first nor last which are considered to be the "top billing" positions in a multi-author article. His main claim to fame in the present article appears to be his book "Ten Lies About AIDS," an HIV-denialist tract published by a vanity publisher and not reviewed by anyone of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject passes WP:Prof and WP:Prof routinely and clearly. The subject's unusual views on HIV infection make him more notable, not less. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete: I have to agree with MastCell -- I don't see what sources could be used to say anything more than, "He published a whole lot of stuff." What will we say about him, or about what anyone's said about him? EEng (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added three mainstream book sources about his AIDS denial to the article, two of them discussing the 2000 South African presidential panel he participated in and one of them including a nontrivial paragraph of biographical detail about him. There are also a lot of hits on Google news about the same thing, but of more dubious reliability. I think he passes both WP:GNG for his AIDS denial and WP:PROF as president of a society. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is less clear in the citation record but I think it's also there if one looks more closely at where the citations are and what they say: for instance the textbook Biology: The Foundations (1977, unfortunately available only on snippet view from Google books) includes a line "The pattern of centriole replication was first worked out independently by Etienne de Harven of the Sloan-Kettering lnstitute and Joseph G. Gall". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;(edit conflict) David Eppstein's newly added sources seem to me to demonstrate notability even under the gng, leaving aside (interesting enough) discussions about proper application of wp:prof.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As per David Eppstein who has found sufficient coverage to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2011 (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.