Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic

Pierre Jovanovic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pierre Jovanovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NAUTHOR. Very few of the claims in the article have appropriate sourcing, and a Google search turns up little except passing mentions and links to his own works. I attempted some cleanup, but wasn't able to find any additional sources (and neither has the author, following some discussion). This article was previously deleted in 2016, and the French Wikipedia has also deleted and salted this topic. Bradv 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Please have a look at the discussion on the talk page Talk:Pierre Jovanovic.

• This article has plenty of reliable sources. According to WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source, reliable sources can be :

• A book which is published and properly cited. See in article the refs 3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,16,17,18,21,22
• Scholarship articles or books. See refs 5,19
• News organizations. See refs 12,13,20,23,24. Micha Jo (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• The argument that "Google search turns up little" has no encyclopedic value. Micha Jo (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Reasons for deletion 2 years ago were understandably justified by lack of quality secondary sources. We believe that this has now been addressed correctly. The new article has been under review for 2 months before publishing. Before it was approved by L293D, it was reviewed by Art LaPella, Anne Delong, TAnthony, Andrewa, WikiDan61, Dan arndt. Micha Jo (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• The article meets the WP:NAUTHOR criteria:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. See the many books that reference Jovanovic's works, not only in French, but also in English, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Polish and Romanian. 800,000 books sold is quite an indication of notoriety. See Talk:Pierre Jovanovic.
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Here the novel idea is that the Apocalypse book doesn't describe a physical catastrophe but a financial catastrophe.
• The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He has published more than 12 books, plus his work was featured in a documentary and a national TV show (refs 34 and 35 in the Internet Movie Database). He is cited in 15 independent books, 2 scolarship articles and 5 news organization articles. Micha Jo (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, Jovanovic is quite controversial. This is what makes his views so interesting. The fact that one of the major French newspapers (Le Monde) and that a book attack his work are proofs that he is not a mainstream thinker and that he is influential. That is a sign of notoriety. Micha Jo (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• If we keep authors with a million books sold in 7 languages away from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia risks again of being accused of censorship or bias. Just like in the Donna Strickland incident. Her wikipedia page was deleted just before she won a Nobel prize in Physics [[1]] [[2]] and User:Bradv/Strickland incident. Micha Jo (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - My French is limited, so I can't improve the referencing of this article, but I found some items that may be appropriate: book (2 pages), book (2 pages), book, Le Monde, I can't tell how relevant these are, but if any are useful maybe someone who can read them could add them to the article. Micha Jo, "encyclopedic value" refers to the content of articles, not discussions on talk pages. Also, while it's good that a book is published and "properly cited", to be a good reference it should have extensive factual information about the subject (in this case Mr. Jovanovic) which is written by someone who is not closely connected to the subject.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Anne Delong, the three book sources all just mention the subject in passing (they all appear to be about the books, rather than the author). The fourth mentions him only as "conspiracy blogger". None of those sources actually provide any coverage of his life or work, and therefore do nothing to establish notability. Bradv 04:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC). *The books in reference do not cover his life or his biography, but they cite his books and discuss his ideas. Micha Jo (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

    @Anne Delong: Thanks for your research. You cited 4 books, but there are many more. Please check the article Pierre Jovanovic, there are more than 15 books that reference him and cite his ideas.Micha Jo (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This never should have been accepted in the condition it was in to begin with but despite the bazillion sources, none of them meet the "significant, in depth" threshold. Praxidicae (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• "significant in depth" is a concept of your own invention. It is nowhere cited in WP:Reliable Sources [User:Micha Jo|Micha Jo]] (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)]
• By recognizing that there is a "bazillion sources", you do recognize that the subject has notoriety. Micha Jo (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Micha Jo It's a concept of my own invention? really? I certainly didn't make that up considering I've never edited that page. The fact that there are a bazillion links does not mean that the sources are worth anything and certainly not in this case. Praxidicae (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: In General Notability Guideline [3], there is the concept of "significant coverage". This means addressing the topic directly (verified), no original research (verified) and not a trivial mention (verified). Your concept of "significant in depth" is NOT in these guidelines. You obviously do not like the topic of this article, but the facts are that it conforms to Wikipedia's policies and so it should be kept. Myself I do not like Pokemons, but I am not trying to argue that they should not be a part of our encyclopedia. Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

We require significant and in depth coverage of subjects. Period. This isn't something I've made up. Can you please stop accosting everyone who votes against your wishes with an actual policy/consensus based argument?Praxidicae (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Here we disagree. The subject has extensive and significant coverage, which is required by Wikipedia's guidelines. "in depth" is NOT a part of Wikipedia's guidelines. Micha Jo (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:INDEPTH, though admittedly that is part of a guideline on events. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. You are right. "in depth" exists in Wikipedia's guidelines. But it applies to events and not to people. Micha Jo (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

And do you realize that his books were translated into 6 different foreign languages ? This is quite remarkable and is a proof of serious third party "deep" interest in them. Micha Jo (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that you take this personally, but I am NOT attacking you! I am defending this page with precise and rational arguments, not unsubstantiated opinions. Micha Jo (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Move back to draft per Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving articles to draft space. Agree that it is not ready for the main namespace, but it has possibilities. For example the claim that one of his books sold 800,000 copies is supported by a valid reference to La Dépêche du Midi, but the first reference given for this factoid does not support the claim . And this doesn't necessarily make the book or its author notable even if established, but it's reason enough to encourage more work on the article. The previous deletion, and the deletion and salting of the French Wikipedia article, are similarly relevant only in inviting more investigation. This (and La Dépêche for that matter) is left-wing stuff, and the scholarship can be questionable at times, and how French Wikipedia deals with this is up to them, and no direct relevance here. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Andrewa: I respectfully disagree. The first reference #23 (Kernews) mentions over a million copies sold. The second reference #24 (La dépêche du Midi) mentions over 800,000 copies sold. I followed Dan arndt's edit who imposed the smaller number. So both references support the claim. Could you please agree to reconsider your recommendation to agree? Regards Micha Jo (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I don't know how I missed that. Reconsidering. (I did find it surprising and disappointing, and I'm glad I was wrong.) Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Andrewa: Also I believe that moving the article back to Draft will not improve it. It will be like a death toll. I have researched this article to the max, for a period of 2 months. I do not see how it could be improved. If it is sent to Draft, I would probably lose all interest and let it die there. Micha Jo (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else might pick it up in order to save it from deletion as G13. There is a WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for example, and it appears active, Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If we keep authors with a million books sold in 7 languages away from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia risks again of being accused of censorship or bias. Just like in the Donna Strickland incident. Her wikipedia page was deleted just before she won a Nobel prize in Physics [[4]] [[5]] and User:Bradv/Strickland incident. Micha Jo (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

So you said above as well. But that's not the issue here. The issue is simply, does the article as it stands belong in the article namespace? And if not, then what do we do about it?

The Donna Strickland incident is notable mainly for the blatant hypocrisy of the press... including in the two articles you cite. If they'd reported on her earlier then we would have too. But they didn't notice her either, and they have no excuse, and are doing nothing about it. While we rely on them, explicitly, and are investigating whether we can do better even so. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Pierre Jovanovic is quite famous in France. He is a very vocal critic of the banks and of corrupt politicians. Alyona2011 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)