Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Philippe de Lespinay


 * 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. Non-notable autobiography (Sockpuppet investigations/Pat grenier) —Ruud 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe de Lespinay

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of this biography is "a French entrepreneur and inventor", as the article states, and evidently has extensive knowledge and experience in the subjects of Artificial Intelligence and Expert systems, having apparently set up a company producing such software. As the article also notes, Jean-Philippe de Lespinay has authored a couple of articles on the subject for the Larousse encyclopedia, and has apparently had several articles published elsewhere. I see no evidence however that such publications can meet WP:notability (books) guidelines, meaning that he doesn't pass the notability test as an author/journalist. Regarding his work in AI, the article makes repeated claims about ground-breaking advances in software, without providing any independent reliable sources to back them up. Instead, we are offered sources written by Lespinay himself, together with links to scanned documents on Lespinay's company (Tree Logic Ltd) website - sometimes with sections intentionally blanked out - that don't actually verify the claims made. I have repeatedly attempted to explain to the contributor of the article our requirements regarding the need to provide sources to back up claims of notability, but have got nowhere. Likewise, doing my own searches for information on Lespinay has revealed nothing to indicate the availabilty of independant material required to establish notability as an 'inventor' or as an 'entrepreneur'. Accordingly, I propose that the article should be deleted, as not meeting Wikipedia requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Questioning Jean-Philippe de Lespinay’s notability as an author/journalist is irrelevant, as he never pretended to be an author or journalist. His numerous writings are by-products of his work as an entrepreneur and inventor. As Wikipedia has no specific rule for this category, we can rely on the basic criteria : "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject."
 * The Jean-Philippe de Lespinay entry is supported by dozens of publications. Some of these are primary sources and we agree that "they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" (note that they are not to be dismissed anyway, as according to WP rules they "may be used to support content in an article"). This leaves numerous ("multiple") secondary publications in the general and business press, including some large and well-known French newspapers and magazines which certainly qualify as "reliable" and "independent". Does the fact that they are available as scanned documents on Jean-Philippe de Lespinay’s company lessen their significance? Certainly not, this just means making them available on different media, with no impact on their content (I don't see the alleged "intentional" blankings). On the other hand, it provides for their verifiability. Remember most of them where published in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s as paper-only publications which today are available only in French libraries.
 * While these publications amply prove notability, do they actually verify the claims made? If not, this would call for editing the article, not deleting it. I’ll leave this to technical experts. Note that a large part of these articles were published in the IT business press, and I would assume they were in a good position to decide if Jean-Philippe de Lespinay’s technology was significant at the time in the field of AI. Also note that a full book, Le Seac’h’s Développer un système expert, was written out of using this technology by a publisher, Éditions du PSI, which was back then one of the main French publishers specializing in IT.--OBreizMaBro1 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — OBreizMaBro1 (talk • contribs) has made no edits outside this topic. OK, 143 edits (including "éditions supprimées") on the French Wikipédia.  --Lambiam 11:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I made numerous edits on the French wikipedia, but for some reason my name or password was not recognized on en.wikipedia.org and I had to create a 2d account under the same name.--OBreizMaBro1 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! sorry, I didn't mean "Développer un système expert" was written by the publisher or that the publisher was using this technology, just that the publisher of the book was a major one.--OBreizMaBro1 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It only takes one person, well aware of the workings of Wikipedia and who knows how to put a banner, and a banner for deletion appears. It's sad. Without good reason, refusing discussion, AndyTheGrump left the talk page and lead me here. With this unmotivated banner (he did not even suggest an improvement in the article!) he is hurting the authors and the subject of article, but it is probably the intended purpose. Is it comply with the Wikipedia rules ? Pat grenier (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith --Lambiam 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." And you Lambian, do you help our project or are you hurting it ? Pat grenier (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OBreizMaBro1 has fully responded to AndytheGrump and I thank him. I add AndyTheGrump admits that the subject of the article is a French entrepreneur and an expert in AI who has written extensively on AI and expert systems and on whom much has been written, but strangely he does not ask for the reasons for this fame and sees no evidence of notability. He does not deny that JP de Lespinay has produced innovations and sold his expert systems to many companies during 20 years. He does not deny that Josephine, a very large expert system (1000 rules + extern programs) was developed in 1986 in 4 months with the Maieutic method by a non computer scientist and it was a technological first. He doesn't deny it was a conversational software with questions produced by the zeroth order reasoning engine developed by Lespinay, probably the first one in history. It doesn't deny that this expert system was used during years by customers and journalists of way and that this feat was acclaimed by the press for years. He does not deny that this method was automated in Maieutica, Miao, and Trex, generators producing expert systems that can be used on the web, which clearly show that this method of writing expert systems works well. He does not deny that, if true, it is an unique technology and therefore the notability of Lespinay can be explained perfectly. He does not deny that Lespinay was asked (and paid) to write an article of 16 pages about state of art in IA in the most important scientific journal in Europe: Science and Life (it was one of the longest articles ever written in this review). No, he denies it's enough to have an article in Wikipedia. He prefers to put a deletion banner to cast suspicion on our article. Pat grenier (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am obliged to neither confirm nor deny anything. All that I have asked is that you find independent reliable sources that actually support the claims you are making regarding the 'fame' of Lespinay, and the 'acclaimed' nature of his 'technological first'. The sources you provide don't. I have been unable to find any such sources myself (and for the umpteenth time, we don't accept scanned documents hosted on the subject's own website as sources). It seems reasonable to assume then that such sources do not exist.


 * I note also that you refer to 'our article'. Do you mean yours? Or Lespinay's? Or come to that, are you Lespinay? You appear to be making claims regarding Lespinay that are undocumented, and could only be made by someone close to Lespinay. I assume you are familiar with Conflict of interest? Could you clarify, for the record,whether you have any relationship (professional or personal) with Lespinay? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Pat grenier is a single-purpose account, presumably the same user as the SPA User:Pat Grenier (see ) used to create this article. --Lambiam
 * Lambian, "please assume good faith" Pat grenier (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The reliable sources cited do not provide the in-depth coverage required for notability. The corresponding page on the French Wikipédia was also deleted for lack of notability, as well as another page on his brainchild Maïeutique. --Lambiam 09:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * not delete. First, The fact that an article the same subject in French-language Wikipedia has been deleted is totally irrelevant - Wikipedia's are independent, and each have their own policies" dixit AndyTheGrump himself. Then, Lambian, what WP rule do you invoke to refuse notability and an improvement of the article ? What rule do you invoke to refuse the article about Lespinay describes an entrepreneur and/or two companies ? Pat grenier (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arguments of OBreizMaBro1 are off-topic since all the references are about the technology or de Lespinay's companies, not de Lespinay himself. We are discussing the notability of Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, not the technology he developed. The numerous sources do not provide any notable references to de Lespinay, only self-references, and small interviews in minor, advert-like articles. Besides, the use of the most serious sources is flawed: there are no real connections between what is being asserted in the article and the actual sources (e.g. refs 9 and 10). There is no recognition of de Lespinay or de Lespinay's work outside his attempts at self-promotion. On the whole Lespinay business, including La Maieutique, I will draw here the same conclusion as on the french wikipedia: it might be beneficial to add a few words about this technology in the Expert system article, mainly for historical interest, to document the attempts at a widespread use of expert systems in industry in the 80s, but nothing more, and certainly not independent articles. Sylenius (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I inform everybody that Sylenius is one of those who have already succeeded twice to obtain deletion of all references to the Lespinay discovery in Wikipedia France, in 2008 and this month ! It can therefore be expected he has one or two strong arguments. Read the following:
 * 1) "We" are discussing this and not that" ? You've become the voice of others in Wikipedia eng ? It's a conspiration ?
 * 2)"We are not discussing the technology he developed" ! OK: the Article La Maieutique is therefore maintained and, consequently, the article on his inventor is maintained.
 * 3)"e.g. refs 9 and 10": these references show software engineering is still today a theme of research because the solution is considered still not found. If that references are bothering you, I can find other. This is not a reason to request the removal of an article.
 * 4)"the use of the most serious sources is flawed (e.g. refs 9 and 10)" You have chosen these two references as the most serious because they do not speak of Lespinay inventions, or his customers, or his companies, or his theories?
 * 5) "There is no recognition of de Lespinay or de Lespinay's work outside his attempts at self-promotion": all press clippings in the most famous national newspapers in France, cited in the articles are "self-promotion" ?
 * 6) "I will draw here the same conclusion as on the french wikipedia: it might be beneficial to add a few words about this technology in the Expert system article, mainly for historical interest, to document the attempts at a widespread use of expert systems in industry in the 80s, but nothing more, and certainly not independent articles" You admit "historical interest" of the inventions of Lespinay but "certainly not independent articles" ?! Why ? Pat grenier (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete-non-notable.Jarhed (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please Jarhed, explain. Deletion is not a joke. Pat grenier (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails the GNG. That there may be French language sources about the subject is all very well and good, but one actually has to produce them, and I take it as significant that no one on the French Wikipedia seems to have found any either.  It is somewhat specious to argue that English speakers will find French sources the French speakers couldn't ... in any event, no one has.   Ravenswing  15:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are a "Senior Editor III", you created 54 articles on Wikipedia, you have one of the 1000 most active Wikipedians, and you don't see there is no argument for deletion and improvement is not offered ? You don't detect bad faith ? You don't see the sources that we show prove indisputably the notability of Lespinay so that Sylenius, his worst ennemy, propose "it might be beneficial to add a few words about this technology in the Expert system article, mainly for historical interest, to document the attempts at a widespread use of expert systems in industry in the 80s". You do not notice that our opponents are computer scientists and La Maieutique of Lespinay is a technology to program without computer scientists ? Apparently you are not a computer scientist, please help us ! Use your intelligence to prevent removal of articles in the WP eng showing a key period of history and an invention for improving the life of everybody in the world, but hated of computer scientists because they are afraid of losing their job (these computer scientists who have been the cause of the disappearance of many jobs, without be harassed...).
 * That's what happened twice in the WP fr with Lespinay (2008 and September 2011): believing in democracy, a horde of computer scientists came to vote "NO" and too bad for the public interest. It is the death of encyclopedic spirit. Yet he is born in France, with Diderot... Pat grenier (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: There are 45 different links in the article. 1 is a bad link (The page cannot be found), 11 are general articles with no allusion to Lespinay or maïeutique. 15 are texts writed by JPhi de Lespinay, 6 are documents with variable interest : diplom, registration of Tree Logic (Société radiée le 06/10/2003), genealogy of marquis de Lespinay, regional three years FCPI label, 2 IA conferences in 1987 with JPhi de Lespinay in the program.
 * 12 are scanned articles on Lespinay'site, not valuable fot WP notability. But we have the same conclusion if we look about their significance: 10 from these 12 articles date from the implementation of each successive software, and give no indication about their success : Josephine in 1987 (17, 3=16), MIAO in 1990-91 (25, 26), Maieutica in 1996 (24), Tiara in 2001-2002 (33, 8). Only two articles give these indications, and both are very bad :
 * (20) 01 Informatique, 30/5/88 : Joséphine a maintenant un an. Cette application (...) a été saluée comme l'une des premières réalisations opérationnelles dans le domaine bancaire. Pourtant, le déploiement (...) a pris du retard, la version Minitel de l'application a été abandonnée et l'on reconnaît (...) que l'utilisation (...) s'accompagne d'erreurs et demande une grande vigilance. (...) Erreur dès la conception ou simple problème interne de mise à jour et de circulation de différentes versions ? Nous pencherions pour la première éventualité car, malgré un discours très vendeur de la société Arcane, il ne nous a pas semblé qu'il était si facile de manier la base de faits. (...) Il va maintenant falloir se sortir de l'amateurisme, laisser de côté les démarches inspirées par la curiosité
 * (22=28), Systèmes experts, 10/12/92 : C'est la troisième année qu'Arcane, une société nantaise spécialisée sur les applications d'intelligence artificielle et présidée par Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, est présente sur le salon Maintenance (...) Après 7 ans pendant lesquels le chiffre d'affaires, réalisé sur cette seule activité systèmes experts, a stagné à quelque 700 KF par an, 1993 pourrait générer un CA de l'ordre de 1,5MF estime le président d'Arcane. La petite société va-t-elle enfin connaître le développement auquel elle était promise il y a deux ans ?)
 * So JP de Lespinay has produced no proved successful innovation. Josephine never really works and was rapidly abandoned, and we have no indication for the others. And, because bankruptcies, Tree Logic had no activity between several years, JPhi de Lespinay having just got the right to create a society in 2010.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigoureux (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 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.