Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Olivier


 * 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 original nonsense in any case, and also the stub created on top of it by and per David Eppstein which almost amounts to. No prejudice against recreating this later with some sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Michel Olivier

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This guy is totally unknown both in France and UK. No book of this author have never been published in both side of the Channel and his biography is probably a pure hoax. Even if not, these works are clearly not notable. Pymouss44 Causer  02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Probable hoax, with no sources to verify anything in the article. I've looked via Google, and find no relevant results. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The contents of the article as nominated seem perhaps to be a joke, a hoax, or an attack page. The listed titles appear nowhere else, it talks about his supposed research only to claim that it stopped, and it lists an improbably named coauthor who also doesn't seem to exist. But there is a real French mathematician by this name; MathSciNet finds 37 papers by him. I've cut the article down to what I can verify from that source. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Eppstein's stub may not include a claim of notability, but I see no harm in keeping a fresh stub for a while in case one appears. Original arguments for deletion seemed valid, but this is an entirely new article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't really think we should wait on the crystal ball. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * response Ithink WP:CBALL would apply if I was saying that the subject hasn't done anything notable yet, but will do something notable in the future. What I'm saying is that it is resonably likely that he has already notable and that evidence will appear in the article in the future. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not a hoax, see |here. But the links on his personal page to his publication list and such are dead, so I don't know whether he is notable, apart from existing. --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems that we have very little verifiable information about him based on David Eppstein's stub. I would reconsider if more information from reliable sources is available. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral (leaning to delete). Right now, the stub does not make it at all clear why the subject is notable, while the home page leads to a dead link for the publications page -- not a good sign.  On the other hand, the subject has 37 publications on MathSciNet (from 1971 to 2006), with 104 citations by 66 authors -- a decent, yet not outstanding record.  Turgidson (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, many French univserity websites are incomplete, even for otherwise very notable researchers, so the fact that his bibliography deadlinks does not say much. 104 citations would not be much in the life sciences, but in mathematics, citation rates are much lower. I have no idea however how low so I can't say whether 104 indicates notability or not. --Crusio (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I know what you mean -- academic web sites in France quite often are, shall we say, lacking in html prowess, so perhaps we should not read too much in those deader than dead links? And yes, the citation rate is lower in math than in sciences, though the half-life of a good publication is higher, I'd say.  The citation rate of 104/66 on MathSciNet is quite decent, yes. The most quoted is a paper about "The class number one problem for some non-abelian normal CM-fields", appeared in the Transactions of the AMS in 1997, with 20 quotes, plus 8 review citations. Still, the case for keeping this article is pretty thin, one would like to know more, if possible... Turgidson (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not because of the quality or quantity of his research (seems ok to me) but because we still have so little source material on which to base an encyclopedic article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2007 (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.