Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Leroux


 * 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. Ultimately, "fails WP:N" is a very difficult argument to get around, and the humming and hawing about maybe possibly meeting a criterion or two of WP:ACADEMIC is not supported by consensus (even its advocates don't seem to really believe it). Wily D 09:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Leroux
— ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Pbenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— 109.154.26.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Africangenesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Even if we assume, rather broadly, that the "single topic" that User:IRWolfie had in mind was anything related to global warming, I have edited on 29 other topics since 2007:
 * Chaos theory
 * Che Guevara
 * Conscription in Germany
 * Counterpoint
 * Denialism
 * Enumerative induction
 * Ericsson cycle
 * Evolution
 * Fallacy
 * False dilemma
 * File talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png
 * Fluid ounce
 * Health effects of tea
 * Intelligent design
 * Kaempferol
 * Low-energy vehicle
 * MDMA
 * Melatonin
 * Near-Earth object
 * New Zealand
 * Novel
 * Ozone depletion
 * Plug-in hybrid
 * Postmodernity
 * Russell Humphreys
 * Sodium benzoate
 * Solar variation
 * Specified complexity
 * Tea
 * So I hardly qualify as a single purpose account. Given that are large number of my edits are in the global warming subject area, still these criteria would apply:
 * "Editing time line: the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include
 * Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA.
 * An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA."
 * I demand that IRWolfie withdraw this dismissive personal attack.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I've been editing at wikipedia extensively during my "absences". When I'm editing non-AGW topics I don't have to login but can edit anonymously.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 95% of your contributions are to edits about global warming. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And it would probably been about 20% of my edits, if it hadn't been for a certain infamous cadre. You are abusing the single purpose account template, I suggest to retract it to retain some credibility.--Africangenesis (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

— Cliff482 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't find significant coverage in google scholar or books. Google news returns various hits to various individuals. More specifically to the scientist I only found a good amount of passing mentions in the news sources (some of which were comments) but nothing providing significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I could find over 30 citations of his 1998 text in books and journal articles. --Africangenesis (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another google scholar fail. Do they let just anybody propose articles for deletion? I find 124 citations for "Le climat de l'Afrique tropicale: The climate of tropical Africa"--Africangenesis (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One has to wonder who IRWolfie is. "The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes" cited by 61 --Africangenesis (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * His book "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" cited by 74--Africangenesis (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More works in which he is the primary author:
 * "Analyse météorologique des pluies torrentielles des 12 et 13 novembre 1999 dans le Languedoc-Roussillon./Meteorological analysis of the torrential rains of …"M LEROUX - Géocarrefour, 2000 - persee.fr
 * "Les climats subtropicaux dits" méditerranéens" et les climats de la Méditerranée (2e partie)" M Leroux - L'Information géographique, 2002 - armand-colin.com
 * " La dynamique des situations météorologiques des 21-22 et 26-27 septembre 1992 dans le sud du couloir rhodanien / The dynamics of the meteorological patterns of 21-22 and 26-27 September 1992 in the southern Rhône corridor" Marcel Leroux  lien Revue de géographie de Lyon  lien   Year   1993   lien Volume   68   lien Issue 68-2   lien pp. 139-152
 * "Paléométéorologie de la région de Taoudenni" M Leroux - 1991 - cat.inist.fr
 * "Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France: autopsie des agglutinations anticycloniques des hivers de 1988 à 1992" M Leroux, S Aubert, J Comby, V Mollica… - Science et changements
 * "Déficit pluviométrique hivernal sur la France : autopsie de la situation anticyclonique du 19 décembre 1989 au 25 janvier 1990 / The winter rainfall deficiency in France : autopsy of the anticyclonic situation from the 19 December 1989 to the 25 January 1990" Marcel Leroux  lien Revue de géographie de Lyon  lien   Year   1991   lien Volume   66   lien Issue   66-3   lien pp. 197-206
 * Works in which he is not the primary author, I will keep adding them here:
 * "Are There Solar Signals in the African Monsoon and Rainfall?" H Faure, M Leroux - Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions …, 1990
 * "Evidence of atmospheric paleocirculation over the Gulf of Guinea since the Last Glacial Maximum" AM Lezine, JP Tastet, M Leroux - Quaternary Research, 1994 - Elsevier
 * "Relationships Between Polar Highs Activity and Air Temperature Anomalies in the North Pacific Region" A Favre, M Leroux, A Gershunov - AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2003
 * "POSTER: Relationships between the Features Variationsof Highs and Lows in the North Atlantic Region and North Atlantic Oscillationfrom 1950 to 2000" A Pommier, M Leroux - 1st International CLIVAR Science Conference, 2004
 * --Africangenesis (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 30-100 citations for a book is pretty standard in academia, it's not a sign of notability. Here is a standard book by someone else which has 1000 citations. There are articles and books with several hundreds citations by individuals who aren't notable. That he wrote books doesn't necessarily contribute to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for that not being notable? You are sticking to this even though you initially thought a negative finding on a google scholar search was significant.  We now find it is far from negative.  BTW, four of the times he was cited were in journal Nature articles. --Africangenesis (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to repeat it again, having a few citations doesn't help with notability. These citations are all routine for an experienced academic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you don't have a citation, it is just your opinion.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

1) The first poster who suggested deletion on Sept. 7 claimed "him writing a PhDthesis on the subject, for instance, does not show his views are accepted or rue, as the article claims". Yet this comment was ignorant of the fact that Leroux PhD was republished by the WMO and distributed to all member countries. If the work had no significance, one cannot imagine why the WMO would do that!

2) Leroux was Professor Emeritus of Universities, Former Director of the Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine, CRCTA (dakar), former Director of the LCRE in Lyon France, Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques (teaching excellence).

3) Since when Google is an arbiter of scientific excellence? Many often cited papers are unfortunately terrible science...

4) Leroux university textbook has been very successful and seen 2 French editions (1996 and 2000 with a 2004 reprinting in France) and 2 editions in English (Wiley and Springer), the latest in 2010 two years after he passed away. Lamont Doherty scientist Dr. George Kukla figures among those acknowledged in the last one. Are the deletion supporters knowledgeable in meteorology, climatology? Or is it a witchhunt based on differing scientific opinion?

'''In any case none of the arguments presented by the supporters of deletion amount to any scientific or biographical knowledge of this French climatologist. In consequence I support the page be left alone and not deleted.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)  — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 1. The WMO seems to host a lot of theses, that's not really something that shows notability. 2. Being a professur emeritus doesn't help with notability, having an award for good teaching in your country doesn't show notability. The Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine isn't notable. 3. I don't care whether he is a good scientist or not, just whether he is notable or not, that is a different question. 4. This isn't an AfD argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no evidence that the WMO did indeed distribute his thesis William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously Connolley never read Leroux "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" Springer 2001 in which it is written: Based on original French edition, "Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale" published by Champion/Slatkine, Paris/Geneve 1983!!! Therefore Connolley's post is uninformed and misleading. ShowTimeAgain
 * Pardon? How does that demonstrate that the WMO distributed his thesis? But you're partly right, I've never read it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See Bibliography: http://lcre.univ-lyon3.fr/climato/Marcel_Leroux_biblio.pdf ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, is that what you're relying on? I presume you mean "Publié et diffusé par l'Organisation Météorologique Mondiale (OMM), Genève, subventions de l'Agence de Coopération Culturelle et Technique (ACCT), Paris, du Centre National de la  Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) et du Ministère de la Coopération, Paris". But that refers to the 1983 book (is that the same as his thesis? I suppose it might be. But again, there is no evidence for that). Also, that is definitely not the same thing as "His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states" which is what the article said, until I removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Leroux: "In 1983, my book Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale (published by Champion-Slatkine) appeared: it was two volumes, the first (22x30cm) of 636 pages, with 349 figures, and the second (31x46cm) of 24 pages of notes and an atlas of 250 charts. This was a condensed version of a state doctoral thesis in climatology undertaken in 1980. This publication was supported, principally by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva, and by the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)..." If the formulation needed precision, why don't you modify, correct it instead of deleting Mr. Connolley? May I suggest you go to the Stanford University Library to read it first hand http://searchworks.stanford.edu/?q=%22Leroux%2C+Marcel.%22&search_field=search_author

ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, great, so we're getting somewhere: its now clear that the original His thesis was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization and distributed within all members states to which I objected was, indeed, quite wrong. As to why I deleted it: it is exactly as I said: because there was no evidence for it. And no, I'm not obliged to scour the web for it, you're obliged to provide refs if you want to keep material in. And once again notice that we have no secondary sources at all; we're still relying entirely on him (and who is Mr Connolley?) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1983 Leroux book in question is in the best universities librairies (see Stanford University Librairies link). Furthermore, page xviii of the Foreword of the Second English Edition of "Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate" Springer 2010, Leroux writes: " ... my 1980 thesis, was published in 1983 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO/OMM, Geneva), and was distributed within all member states." Unfortunately, Professor Leroux died in 2008 and thus cannot defend his reputation or does William M. Connolley demand to see the inhumation permit too? ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to your latest: So do un-notable scientists publish successful university textbook that warranted a second edition and a second printing of the second edition? How about receiving two editions in English? It is therefore logical that his name would have an entry in Wikipedia. This one you carefully skirted. If not an AfD debate, what is it? This looks more and more like a witchhunt against a scientist whose research does not confirm the so called consensus. This is history rewriting disguised under the pretext of your narrow criteria defining what's notable or not. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)  — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Not notable. Oh, and STA, the fact that nobody seems to know much about him is certainly not an argument in favor of his notability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maintain Steven J Anderson, "nobody" who? I guess with criteria such as yours, Lady Gaga has more chance to be added to the climate science roster... Thank you for stopping by this year. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: *Maintain* - there are not so many simple articles about scientists - as against pop-phenomena - that we can afford for one to be deleted. Is it significant that Leroux appears to have not wholly endorsed the currently popular (not necessarily right - cf Manchester United FC) view on climate alarmism? I would not want, say, George Monbiot removed - because he seemingly differs from Leroux. Autochthony wrote: 1950 Z, 27th September 2012. 109.154.26.60 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maintain A scientist whose texts continue to be publish internationally after his death is notable. --Africangenesis (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC) [Update: in fact that's not quite accurate: the article was originally created purely to support his inclusion in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming; see  and User:Mariojalves contributions around then William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sound like a good reason to create an article, there is no doubt he was a mainstream scientist, he could have been listed without an article, but go ahead an create a wikilink, and then the article.--Africangenesis (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is apparently no negative manifestation of such a hijacking. The scientists views are fairly presented as his views and not for the truth of the matter.  What do you find objectionable?  --Africangenesis (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having 2/3 of the lede taken up by GW denialism is a problem. Even if you believe it, its clearly not a reasonable representation of his importance. Or alternatively, if that really is all he is notable for, he isn't notable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * His global warming book was published in several countries and is probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him. It is something he evidently cared deeply about. The remedy would seem to be to put it in its own section if it is inappropriate for the lead. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him - I know nothing about him. That of itself doesn't prove he's non-notable, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know who he is either, I was responding to a report at FTN, and I noticed the subject appears to be non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you know they are fairly represented according to reliable secondary sources? We have seen no reliable sources which give coverage of any aspect about this person. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely, his book is a primary not secondary source of his opinions. It should be easy enough to verify that there is a second poshumous edition of his textbooks. These sound like reasons to participate on the article, not delete it.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood the notability requirements (and my previous sentence). Primary sources don't contribute to notability, only independent sources do. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have failed to understand, that a publisher is a secondary source and every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field are secondary sources of notability. If the text was only being used in courses he taught as so many professors do, we might question his notability.  This posthumous publication of a second edition in another language is obviously not a vanity press. Have you got something personal against the late Marcel Leroux? --Africangenesis (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And suddenly, William Connolley appears! LOL When the little soldiers attack meets with opposition, the general shows up. Of course this bunch has a vested interest to see the page on Marcel Leroux deleted. He explained in a convincing manner the working of atmospheric circulation. And anyone who read his books can see that what he predicted is happening unlike the claims of others...ShowTimeAgain
 * Someone had a google scholar fail. His 1998 textbook has been cited in over 30 other books and journal articles. Presumably his recent 2nd addition will continue to be consulted as an authority. --Africangenesis (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A publisher isn't a source. The book is the source, he wrote the book, therefore it's primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence for "every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field"? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. STA and Africangenesis, the biggest problem here is the lack of referenced third party coverage of Dr. Leroux in his article.  Per the general notability guidelines, inclusion in Wikipedia generally implies that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added).  Right now every reference in the article aside from the link to his obituary goes to a work that he wrote himself.  This is fine for establishing what he believes, but we generally also need references to third-party coverage of his work in order to show that his work / life was significant enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia.  Every academic writes papers, and many write books; however, we expect academics with Wikipedia pages to be more notable than the average professor.  Without references to third-party coverage of Dr. Leroux, it is hard to know whether his career was highly notable or merely average for an academic.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the WMC article be a good comparison? There are lots of blog references to Leroux as well, and his academic credentials are far superior.--Africangenesis (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense to WMC, but the William Connolley article is also pretty weak on notability. That said, if you look at the 28 references, about 40% were written by people other than Dr. Connolley.  That's a lot better starting position from which to judge notability than the current article on Dr. Leroux.  If, like Dr. Connolley, there are books, newspapers, and academic journals that discuss Dr. Leroux, then that would go a long way towards establishing his notability.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: the WMO and Leroux Thesis. Wikipedia is built on improving articles. William Connolley could have corrected the initial wording. Instead he simply deleted any mention about the WMO. In doing so he obfuscated information relevant to Leroux prestige: why would a Swiss based editor undertake publishing a French thesis if it was not for the financial support of the WMO. Considering the size of the publication, one imagine that no doctoral student would have the means to do so by himself. This was therefore a significant show of consideration for his scientific work. In fact the 20:07 Sept. 28, 2012 by Connolley shows the true motive behind the deletion: Leroux scientific position against Global Warming. This is a shameful witch hunt. ShowTimeAgain  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Retain: I thought William Connolley had been suspended or banned from editing technical content because of lack of technical knowledge. Just because some of Leroux findings based on actual data differ from other so-called climate scientists (such as (Dr) Gavin Schmidt, who does not know about the Schmidt number and I suggest neither does Connolley) is no reason to delete information about Leroux and his substantial work. § pbenken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbenken (talk • contribs) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * - About History: User 54.240.197.33 from Seattle who on September 7, 2012 suggested deletion had not posted on Leroux before or any other climatology related article. In fact his first post was on Java Framework on August 27. He posted only once on Leroux and has since then stopped posting under his IP after Sept. 23. On Sept. 25, poster IR Wolfie took over on the deletion nomination after having issued a notability review on Aug. 31. On sept. 28 8:11, William M. Connolley appears with a tirade about "global warming deniers"... ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Objection is raised to the removal of this article. The only reason for such removal on its face is to limit references to those who do not support the Global Man-made Climate Change Agenda. This is part and parcel of Connolley's previous procedures in modifying articles in the past to suit his agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliff482 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Appears to fail WP:GNG as there is not much coverage in reliable news sources, however, if a reliable source can be found to confirm "He was made a chevalier (knight) in the Ordre des Palmes académiques on 31 October 2002", I believe that would be a pass for WP:ACADEMIC #2 or #3. FurrySings (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the lowest grade of the award. No citation is present. Let me quote WP:ACADEMIC: "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 think we have such a lack. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Working in conjunction with Connolley hey IRWolfie, each one taking a page? French Republic Official Journal web archives does not go back further than 2004. Yet Leroux was made a chevalier in the Ordre des Palmes académiques on 31 October 2002 and the nomination was signed by Hervé Célestin, Secretary of the Order Council and Luc Ferry, Minister of Youth, National Education and Research as written on the certificate.ShowtimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence at all that he has the award. Requests for a citation have been met with removal of the request and an implausible citation to a 1983 book William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is evidence of Marcel Leroux being awarded the title of Chevalier in the Ordre des Palmes Academiques: here is the proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leroux_2002_Palmes.jpg
 * As for the so called "implausible citation": the confusion was the result of my lacking clarity in writing a brief description of an edit, mixing two issues the OMM and the Palmes. To make a mountain out of a molehill of this mixup is petty. ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The image isn't proof as we have no way to determine if it is genuine, where did you get that image? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie, are you a "birther" or what? Can't you suddenly read Wikipedia pages? I requested proof of Leroux award to Leroux Estate to which I am not related. I received the scan from which I first described the signatories. Connolley and you denied my word. I thus requested written permission from the Estate to post it and received it from his own daughter. Except among "birthers", the fact Professor Leroux is a Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques is well known and this certificate is authentic as any recipient of the Order can attest. Your counterclaim is ridiculous. ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The education award does not confer notability, it is the lowest grade of award of this type and does not necessarily contribute to notability. It seems to be a standard education award for an academic, and lots of them appear to be given out (judging from google, I can't find the specifics because they have a bad website which can't load the pages I want: ) . Secondly, we have a complete lack of independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "it seems"? That's your personal appreciation not an objective criteria. Palmes Academiques are given to recognized academics. I am glad you too find the "www.amopa.asso.fr" website lacking convenience. Same with the Journal Officiel of the French Republic where such nominations are published and which web archives do not go further back than 2004. As I already said, the authenticity of this document is obvious since the risk of displaying it so publicly should it be faked would overwhelm the inconvenience of the deletion of some wikipedia page. I understand that the Leroux Estate would have rather kept this certificate off the web but they felt it was their duty to protect the reputation of the late professor from your .ShowTimeAgainShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Some reference material: ; U.S. Senate Report. There's more in the French language. Plus the less popular reliable sources that might cover this topic and it adds up to passing WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * is a mention of his book. is a review of said book. How does this contribute to his notability rather than the books? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And its not a Senate report; its lying William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 2 October 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.