Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joël Courtois


 * 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. The BLP concerns expressed tips this over. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Joël Courtois

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Cliff   Smith  16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess we need a definition of a significant accredited college or university. Does Mesa Community College and Bar Tending school qualify?  :- ) Don 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep President of a graduate school. Clearly notable per Notability (academics).  Specifically criterion 6, which states "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society".  The topic is further explained with "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university"  "École Pour l'Informatique et les Techniques Avancées" is accredited.  It is also a graduate school making it significant.  The guideline is more restrictive for Provosts, and I don't believe a provost from this University would be notable solely based on his/her position in the University.  The majority of the sources related to Courtois are based on his position in EPITA which is exactly why our notability (academics) criteria exist. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the future, when you disagree with a guideline or feel it needs clarification, I request that you go to the talk page of the guideline first. In addition, your CSD and PROD tags were disruptive when you clearly knew this would be headed towards AFD. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Don't push your decisions on me. It's only disruptive when someone wants to make a point. You tried to make a point yesterday. Bad idea. It was your choice to fight the inevitable, not mine. The school is ranked 2754th by France itself. If it is significant, where are the other 2753 university presidents? That is the ONLY loophole. I am not the only one to decline it, there are 3 or 4 or 5 others. We are all wrong? The aticle editor's 4 IP's, (so far) are gone. They have been banded for 1 month. They have been banned forever from the French Wiki for disruptive editing. I think there are 3 or 4 more IP's involved, but not proved yet. Every person here who has changed one of their articles was been submitted to AIV. That's about it for me. Savourer.  :- ) Don 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does that figure "2754" come from? I don't see it in either this article or the article on the school. I can't imagine that there would be almost 3000 university-level institutions here in France. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I found it here  :- ) Don 17:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For informational purposes, here is the about page for the site. Ryan Vesey Review me!  18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a French website. If you look here, you'll see that only 240 institutions are listed for France, with this school being ranked 106. If you read their "about" page that you linked to, it says that this ranking is a web-based ranking, similar to what Google does. It doesn't seem to say much about academic quality. As for the other 2753 university presidents, I found them: 105 are in France, 2648 are in the rest of the world. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everyone, please WP:AGF --Nouniquenames (talk)
 * Delete as an inaccurate BLP. I asked for translations of the relevant portions of the sources for fear of this, and my independent research supports it.  I used Google for machine translation when my request was declined.  I have posted this to the talk page, but will also put it here as it is very relevant to the discussion:

Source 1 appears to be a primary source. Relevant portion appears to be "EPITA is the only school that has placed, since its inception, the information technology and communication (ICT) in the heart of its program. International and innovation are two important components of the curriculum. Why? Joel's response Courtois, its director." Source 2 (not sure what the site is, someone may be able to clarify) Since the unrest that followed his birth, EPITA (School of Computer Science and Advanced Technologies) has received a lot of it. But those days are behind us and EPITA is necessary indeed as a training reference in the field of security of information systems. Could not be more affable and enthusiastic Joel Courtois, director of EPITA. Source 3 looks possibly questionable, but it's hard for me to evaluate (perhaps someone can clarify). Does not support all it is claimed to support. Bio:

Joel Courtois Director of EPITA (School of Computer and advanced techniques) of IONIS Education Group since 1997.

After a curriculum focused on mathematics in preparatory classes and university, in 1983 he obtained a Master degree in computer science at the University of Paris 6. At the same time, it performs functions of teacher Education and design engineer in industry.

He joined higher education in 1984 as a teacher and manager training plan "electronics industry" in ISEP (Institut Supérieur de Paris electronics). His penchant for pedagogy and artificial intelligence led him to resume a research activity on meta-knowledge, edited by Jacques Pitrat, and he obtained in 1990 a Ph.D. from the University of Paris 6. He participated in the creation of research laboratories of ISEP and structure of research development.

Involved in lifelong learning, in 1995 he became director of studies of ISTEP (Higher Institute of electronic de Paris), NFI pipeline engineering. In 1997 he became CEO of EPITA. The school was authorized by the CTI (Commission des titres engineering) in 2007.

Source 4 also does not seem to support what it is claimed to support, but likely helps notability. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techno10.fr%2Fjoel-courtois-directeur-epita-f3714.html (too long to post here)

Three sources are listed to support one line. Source 5 doesn't look like it does (but that could be a translation issue). Source 6 seems to indicate that he is involvled with a rival school ("The engineering diploma issued by its rival EPITA (School of Computer Science and advanced techniques) at Kremlin-Bicetre is also one of the most popular market.") Source 7 is a long primary source of which I did not read much.

The notability seems there, but I am not convinced that the article is factually accurate (or has verifiable claims) with respect to the sources given (in so much as the machine translations are concerned). --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, thanks for your thoroughness Nouniquenames. I don't do French at all, but I do Spanish, so I had to depend on Google for much.  I briefly looked over some translations, and was not impressed.  I have been running into this IP(and his sisters) for a month or so.  Initially I assumed good faith, but every time I turned around, I heard quacking. Eventually, I started looking for a roasting pan.   :- ) Don  05:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject does not deserve more than a brief mention in an article on the school. Source 2 is a trade magazine with no specific treatment of subject. Source 3 is self published. Source 4 is self published and covers the school, not the person. As a side note, the now blocked author of the article has specialized in promoting schools of the IONIS group and getting other users to endorse his propositions at AFC. A considerable amount of time has been lost by editors trying to sift through his not so serious refs. As for accuracy, the lack of it is one of the reasons of his ban from the French wiki. &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;Tk 05:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

— 90.84.144.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. I totally agree with Ryan Vesey and totally disagree with Racconish. 90.84.144.168 (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have documented 8 sock puppets so far, they are all in IP range 80.84.144.* or 90.84.146.*  :- ) Don 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. My biggest concern was the poor sources. I went looking for others. At this web page I found the content below, which is a machine translation from the French. My highlighting is what I would consider a sufficiently close paraphrase to constitute copyright violation, especially in combination with the other issues which have been mentioned:

"Joel Courtois is Director of the EPITA (school for computer science and advanced techniques) of IONIS Education Group since 1997. After a curriculum focused on mathematics and preparatory classes at the University, he earned in 1983 a DEA in computer science at the University Paris 6. At the same time, it has functions of teacher national education and design engineer in the industry. He joined the higher education in 1984 as a teacher and responsible for formation of the plan "electronic stream" to theISEP (Institute of electronics of Paris). His penchant for pedagogy and artificial intelligence led him to take a work of research on the meta-connaissances, under the direction of Jacques Pitrat, and in 1990, he obtained a doctorate from the University Paris 6. He participated in the creation of the research laboratories of ISEP and the structure of research. Involved in continuing education, in 1995 Director of studies of the ISTEP (higher Institute of electronic techniques of Paris), he became engineer NFI die. In 1997, he took the general direction of the EPITA. The school was empowered by the CTI (Commission of engineering titles) in 2007."
 * May I also ask someone to clarify on the use of French language names in English Wikipedia? (I understood that the accepted usage, or possibly WP guideline, was to use accepted English forms.) Lately it seems we have been seeing more French language names and titles being submitted at AfC.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 08:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Article titles should be in English except for proper names where name normally used for the person in English-language sources should be used (e.g. you may anglicize St John the Baptist but not Johannes Kepler) - see Article titles. But it's not a big deal if an article is created with a foreign-language title, and certainly not reason for deletion, because it's easy to move an article from the French to the English title. Text in articles should avoid excessive foreign terms (Style) and quotations should have translations into English (Style), although it's useful to give French names and quotations (possibly in a footnote for quotations). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wasn't thinking of it as grounds for deletion, just a concern with how much French there is in the article text. It's not terribly legible if you don't parlez vous! Just to be quite clear, my vote for deletion is solely on the possible copyvio issue. I saw the article text as being so close to this source as to amount to the difference between a machine translation and a human one. With respect to the deletion argument on the other grounds, it does appear to be a graduate college and Courtois is the head of it, so that would qualify as to notability. But the sources are still not very good.  David_FLXD  (Talk) 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Personally, I don't really care whether this article should be kept or deleted however I have to agree with Ryan there Don, whether intended or not, your CSD and PROD nomination were disruptive given the comments on this thread that you yourself started. Anyone reading that would conclude that deletion of this article would not be uncontroversial for the purpose of PROD, and with the claim to satsifying Notability (academics) comes nowhere near to satisfying WP:CSD. Interestingly, I also notice you didn't nominate this article for deletion until after the IP that created this article for submission at WP:AFC was blocked by Dennis Brown (the validity and length of such we'll leave to discuss elsewhere). -- KTC (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Actually the disruption started in AfC. After the article had been declined 7 times by 3 different reviewers, and blocked for a while because it was "disrupting resubmitting it too many times without improvement", we were told by Ryan Vesey, "I'm accepting the article now, if someone disagrees they can take it to AFD."  I waited for a good time, of course.  I don't want those IP dogs at my door.  Everyone who has caused them problems has been sent to Administration for harassment or vandalism.  All of AfC has been disrupted since the French IP's appeared on the scene.   :- ) Don  15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I gave you the opportunity to take it to AFD if you still disagreed. Why would you slap a CSD and PROD tag on it?  The first was clearly incorrect and the second was controversial.  I'm fairly appalled to hear you admit that you waited for the ip to be blocked to take this to AFD. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All other avenues were explored first. There is not necessarily any harm in that.  Your comments at AfC (which I also noticed) seemed inflammatory at the time, but I assumed good faith, a courtesy you have not demonstrated here.  Please cease your battleground mentality, as it does not benefit anyone.  If the IP is blocked, that is one less individual to participate in the AfD.  This is still mentioned at AfC, where many will see it and may wade in (as it was created through AfC).  I have found and joind in with AfD discussions that way in the past.  Since an AfD is about consensus and not voting, it seems likely that one less contributor will not significantly harm the article's chances. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One shouldn't be exploring said avenues when there is no chance of meeting its requirements. Why nominate something for CSD when it clearly doesn't meet any of the critera, and likewise for PROD when it's clear such deletion wouldn't be uncontroversial? Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Go straight to the most appropriate venue, doing anything else is simply wasting own and other people's time. KTC (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, IMHO, it met A7, maybe G3 and now G5. If you take the pretentious French out of the article and translate to English; The guy went to school, the guy went to college, the guy got a PhD, the guy got to do some kind of research somewhere, the guy became president of some technical college.  And, don't forget, he was responsible for the electronic department somewhere, what ever that means.   Why is the New York Times best seller list not filled with books about him?   :- ) Don  00:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe it met A7, fair enough, though I obviously disagree with you there. A7 is no claim of importance or significance with no regard for verifiability or reliable source, and is of a lower standard than notability. The claim of being a university president is by itself enough to be a claim of importance. G5 only applies when the user was banned or blocked at the time they created the article. As far as I know, that's not the case here. G3 is pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes which doesn't applies. There's questions above regarding accuracy but that's not enough to say it's blatant hoaxes. KTC (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go one further and argue that a PROD was a fully acceptable option. Given that the article was repeatedly declined in AfC and appeared to be approved for only that reason, it seems a potentially reasonable, if inaccurate, step. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that I approved the article only because it had been repeatedly declined? That would be silly.  I approved the article solely because I believed and still believe that the topic is notable per criterion 6 of WP:Notability (academics). Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you people take this discussion to your talkpage(s) please? It doesn't belong here and why who did what in the past is immaterial now: we're at AfD and the only question is that of notability of the subject. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I hope to try to improve this article tonight or over the weekend to clear up any inaccuracies or close paraphrasing. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  12:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The guy is the president of a private engineering school with 1,200 students or about 250 students per year (it's a 5 year school). As Dcshank clearly showed, there is nothing else in his CV that's remarkable in any way. That makes him the equivalent of a CEO of a mid-size company. Which is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. --McSly (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the WP notability requirements for any educational institution are a lot less stringent than those for a commercial enterprise. And with regard to the unseemly squabbling going above, anyone for a trout?  David_FLXD  (Talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I did not care if the article was approved or not, the France IP has left a lot of spam all over the Wiki. However, I was not going to put my name on the approval.  To resubmit the article 3 or 4 times with a warning and without touching the article is pure arrogance and an insult to everyone at AfC and the Wiki.  We(most of us I think) are trying to be conscientious about our job.  I was so angry, there are no words, that someone would thumb their noses at us in that way, the sockpuppets even take turns reverting edits so no one breaks the 3RR rule.  Arrogant enough to comment in the edit summary "ha ha this is only my second".  France has a well deserved world-wide reputation for their arrogance beyond the belief of a normal human.  Prejudiced?  You bet your ass, I have has French employees who told me Master's and barely could demonstrate high school competence.  I have worked for French companies who stole my designs. I have no time for the place or people.  :- ) Don  19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society), generally applies to major universities or related institutions (e.g., the Institute for Advanced Study). I just don't think EPITA qualifies, given its narrow focus. It is okay for the institution to have an article on WP, but not its president - who would actually be a college dean or dept. chair in a larger university.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let me throw in a complication arising from precedent. The best argument for delete seems to be that his institution is not considered "major" enough. However, there are many established cases of having kept the articles for heads of small religious institutions (mostly Jewish yeshivas), e.g. here and here. I have argued against these in the past, but consensus has been that even these very narrow institutions qualify, thereby making their heads notable. The issue of maintaining consistency suggests that the debate really is whether EPITA is "major" and past cases suggest it might be (nevermind that it also has its own WP art.). Thoughts? Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
 * I did not participate in those AfDs, I think, but I would certainly be with you arguing that a small yeshiva does not count as a major institute. If the current school would be in the same league, then that would be a reason for me to !vote "delete"" here. Up till now i have refrained from !voting here: despite living in France, I have no idea whether this is a "major" institution or not, although private institutions seldom are in France, they mostly are on the fringe of the system (not in the sense of -fringe science, I hasten to add). But there are exceptions and this may be one (even though I have not seen any evidence one way or another yet). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2012 (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.