Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JL Naudin


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

JL Naudin
 Note to closing admin: the article has been moved to Jean-Louis Naudin, so, if the result is "delete", then please be sure to delete that, and not just the redirect at JL Naudin.


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, lacks 3rd party sources. Bio on a WP:FRINGE proponent. Article itself notes that reliable sources are unavailable. Not seeing how this may meet WP:BIO. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant independent sources given in article (though an excessive number of links to Naudin's self-published material). Similarly web searches produce mainly self-published stuff. No indication at all of notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —RadioFan (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No prejudice to recreation if significant coverage in independent reliable sources ever occurs. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per 2/0. Verbal chat  16:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Seb az86556 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article asserts that the subject is a scientist, yet there is no reliable source with any verification. There are 18 different sites used as references, but only one appears to be reliable (www.princeton.edu); however that reference refutes the subject's research into "lifters". Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup JL Naudin is well known and meets WP:N and WP:V (although this article is poorly written and sourced). He even has articles solely dedicated to him and his ideas such as "Naudin's Lifter Phenomenon", in Electric Spacecraft Journal, vol 33 pp.18-22. (2002). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncertain The only mainstream article I see that even mentions him is a mention in USA today.  So the question is whether he's notable in the antigravity community. The problem is that their sources are not all that reliable; they are certainly not reliable for what the science actually is, but they might be for what reputation he has and what he thinks the science is.    DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh these sources are definitely not notable in term of supporting the science behind the things (many spend time debunking his stuff more than anything else). But to say the dude isn't notable is akin to saying Robert V. Gentry isn't notable. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - a GBooks search for his full name reveals 13 source and a news search finds a mention in Wired and a few other sources. GBooks search for "JL Naudin" finds 8 sources.  Combined with the USA Today mention, I believe these are sufficient to establish his notability within his fringe field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent example of what happens when people try to use numbers of Google hits as a measure of notability, without consideration of the nature and quality of those hits. I have checked all 13 of the Google book hits for "Jean-Louis Naudin" mentioned above. Only one gives more than a single sentence mention of Naudin. In some cases there is less than a one-sentence mention, as in the case of a book where the only occurrence of Naudin's name is in the list of contributors to a work which is cited: the citation is not even to Naudin's work. The 8 Google books hits for "JL Naudin" look like being similar, and at least three are duplications of hits included in the 13 for "Jean-Louis Naudin". The mention in "Wired" is a one sentence caption to a photograph which illustrates a remark about cold fusion; apart from the sentence attributing the photograph to Naudin there are two other sentences. In short, none of the hits referred to makes more than trivial reference to Naudin. Indeed, the fact that this is the most that there is has increased the extent to which I think he is not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The lack of sources is preventing a neutral assessment of his contributions from a mainstream scientific point of view: the article is heavily slanted in favor of its fringe content. Neutrality is not optional. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof #1 as h index = 1 in GS. Can fringe notability be established? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2009 (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.