Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Tardieu


 * 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Michel Tardieu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article comprehensively fails to explain why this person is notable. The individual seems to be "notable" solely for formulating a theory which has "remained far from securing unanimous adhesion" (weasel-words for crank theory). In context, this looks rather like a WP:COATRACK on which to hang ridicule of this theory. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom andy (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs substantial improvement, but he has an article in Le Wikipédia Francais, fr:Michel Tardieu (historien), which appears to include enough evidence that he's notable. I'll add a translation request to our article. --Qwfp (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * delete This scholar and his theory are not notable due to a lack of sufficient coverage in the media and in scholary peer reviewed journals. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, I failed to explain my reasoning above. The French Wikipedia article (Google translation) says he was directeur d'études (1976-91) at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes — to quote our article, "Many of France's greatest scientists in Humanities were professors ("Directeurs d'études") there" — then Chair Professor (1991-2008) at College de France  — again quoting our article "the professors are chosen from among the foremost researchers of the day, with no requirement other than that of being at the top of their fields". I reckon both those fulfil WP:ACADEMIC criterion #5 (in spirit if not in letter as WP:ACADEMIC doesn't always entirely comply with WP:WORLDVIEW at present IMHO). In 1975 he won a  Bronze Medal of the CNRS  — to quote translation of french WP article, "awarded annually to forty winners (one per section of specialties). It «rewards the first work of a scientist, which makes him an expert talent in his field. This award is an encouragement of the CNRS to pursue research already well underway and fruitful»". I think that meets WP:ACADEMIC #2. —Qwfp (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the creator of the article has no contributions since the recreation of the article following the review of its speedy deletion (Deletion review/Log/2010 May 10). I've wikified the article a bit but i'm afraid i don't have time right now to incorporate the above material into the article (and i'm reluctant to take the time while there's still a risk my work may be deleted). —Qwfp (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted by Qwfp, Collège de France selection implies peer-selected notability. I've also added some biographical references to the article from their website, and listed his book translated into English and published by University of Illinois Press last year. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The CdF selection goes some way towards WP:PROF #3 or possibly WP:PROF #5 (I'm not familiar enough with the French academic system to tell which) and he also has some mainstream media coverage for his theories . —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2010 (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.