Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Émile Charon


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Jean-Émile Charon

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Most the article is quotes from his own book. I can't find any evidence he meets WP:AUTHOR. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Spirituality,  and Science. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked for evidence of a WP:AUTHOR pass and couldn't find it. We'd need documented indications that he produced an influential, or at the very least recognized, body of work. A smidge of attention in fringe circles for a single book (Theorie de la Relativité Complexe) won't cut it. It's possible for weird ideas to be noteworthy, and it's possible to become wiki-notable for promulgating one, but we need reliable sources from outside the weird-idea bubble to support that claim. Here, there's barely an indication from within the weird-idea bubble. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not really make notability either as a scientist or a philosopher. Entirely self-sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC).
 * Draftify - Looks like an interesting nut (not a hard-shell fruit, not a metallic fastener), and an article will be in order if secondary reliable sources can be found within six months reporting that he is an interesting pseudo-scientist. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes fairly WP:GNG. (WP:NEXIST), for example:
 * Le Monde 1980 (here)
 * Le Monde 1988 (here)
 * L'Express 2014 (here)
 * DB (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV in any reliable sources, just a couple non-neutral puff pieces in media that can't actual be used as sources. Can't write a WP:V article, shouldn't have an article. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Le Monde and L'Express sources linked about look like in-depth reliable sources, in very high-profile publications, directly and in depth about him. The characterization of them as "non-neutral puff pieces in media" is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT, applied to the sources; these are a major national newspaper and news magazine respectively and their choice to print such pieces makes notability clear. There is no valid policy- or guideline-based rationale for rejecting these sources. There are also published reviews of his translated books: Cosmology: Theories of the Universe (/; ) and Man in Search for Himself, enough for a separate case for notability through WP:AUTHOR. The fact that the first of these reviews (linked twice above) is quite negative is irrelevant for notability, and possibly quite helpful to allay WP:FRINGE concerns. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There are published reviews of Charon's books in academic journals. Examples, (Scottish Journal of Theology),  (The British Journal for the History of Science),  (Contemporary Physics),  (Churchman (journal)) . If anyone has full access to these reviews and can re-write the article by removing the nonsense that is currently on it and expanding with these reviews, the article would be worth keeping in my opinion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Psychologist Guy, I managed to pull your first source. Here's a main highlight:
 * Unfortunately I find it difficult to acknowledge in Charon an authority for thought which obliges me to accept what he says. When I can check the sources of his dogmatic pronouncements I detect arbitrary selection and tendentious distortion. I am un- certain about his consistency in the formulation and use of precarious theses. I am not presuaded that he could take scholarly responsi-bility for pregnant affirmations which seek to win our confidence. Speculative writers, it may be said, inevitably put their work at risk in these respects—though Whitehead did not—and yet their chal-lenge to accepted ways of thinking and living are none the less fruitful. In Charon's case, a debatable 'advance' in the methodology of physics is the jumping-off point for layer upon layer of 'generalising' projects in other fields, none of them tackled in practice. They are not thrown off wantonly, and the ambition to emulate Descartes and Einstein is not immodestly conceived. Yet, if one reflects on the new practice which this speculation is intended to promote, in biology, psycho-analysis, religion, art, politics, one does have not to be an anti-Gnostic Christian to suspect that a garden-path is being paved, which may lead only to some sophisticated French version of Scientology, more civilised no doubt but just as ill-founded as the American version which has recently hit the headlines. Caveat emptor!
 * So yes, pretty heavily criticized. It's a mix of focusing on the book with only some focus on Charon himself, so I'm still unsure on the WP:NFRINGE question unless there was more significant coverage like that outside of book reviews (i.e., slightly more secondary commentary). KoA (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't really have heads or tails on if they meet notability for WP:NFRINGE, but I do agree that the Le Monde and L'Express sources are not appropriate here and essentially do come across as puff pieces. NFRINGE even cautions about news sources like that. That's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but rather a WP:DUE issue. Those are not reliable sources for scientific content. Psychologist Guy may have the better avenue depending on the quality/depth of those sources. KoA (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are solid arguments here for keeping, in that the subject has demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY in the form of WP:SIGCOV satisfying WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. On the other hand, there are well-reasoned assertions that the subject falls short of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG requirements and that therefore the article should be deleted. Draftifying the article would be a possible consideration. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftifying is basically just saying to let someone else delete it in six months without having enough courage of your convictions to stand behind your attempt to delete it. It is a cop-out. We're at AfD, we should make a decision now. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The poor man had the misfortune to live up until 1998, so only living two or three years of his life within the bright searchlight beam of the Internet. Google Books throws up a number of his works, with work still in print/on Kindle, while I'm not sure where you'd look for information on a French writer if NOT in Le Monde or L'Express! This entry in the French National Library certainly points to a significant body of work, although it has to be noted the sourcing in the French article is even worse than the English one. He's also cited quite widely - again, bearing in mind he's pre-Internet. The three French pieces presented here alone get him past WP:GNG, the citations, existence and discussion of a significant body of work give us a clear presumption of notability that goes beyond that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Sources in the article are not bad and per above:, , are SIGCOV, you actually know something substantial about the subject after reading these. I think the entries from the French national library  show that there almost certainly more sources, and the subject probably passes an SNG.  // Timothy :: talk  02:25, 9 April 2023 (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.