Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination)

Gérard Gertoux

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux
• Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination)

[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!

Gérard Gertoux (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 article is.... special. Deleted in 2012 (twice), the fundamental problem seems unresolved. While the article is lengthy and has superficial referenciness, virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated. It doesn't help that his CV reads like a French Buckaroo Banzai but with the names of god instead of brain surgery. French Wikipedia apparently has no article on him (deleted in 2012 and 2018). There's a huge, howling suspicion that the author of this article is the subject, given his other editing focuses. The Talk page has many inventive excuses for failing to achieve any of the metrics normally associated with anyone who passes WP:NACADEMIC, including journals not allowing Google Scholar to index them, but in the end you'd expect at least some independent secondary sources about the subject, after all these years of trying to get him on Wikipedia, and I didn't find any. Guy (help!) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the term ‘referenciness’ has made my day. Thank you. Mccapra (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I really would like to request that sources be verified to see if they are independent and primary sources. With all due respect, let me express that saying that "virtually all sources turn out to be primary" is exaggerated. I would like it to be taken into account that in the diversity of minority groups of Christianity there are points of view with strong evidence, but inclusion is not allowed because they are considered irrelevant under the justification of "fringe theory", or because it is not the "mainstream view". Fringe and notable are two different things. I believe that any difference of opinion can be addressed by quoting wikipedia's policies verbatim, so that we do not expose our personal opinion. Sorry if I don't have the right words to express myself, or if I have been disrespectful. Thank you for your understanding and for your help. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete No indication that WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable standard is met. Passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse, and a grievance about not getting a doctorate do not a notability case make. (Also, the "G. Gertoux has presented conferences at different universities" is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does.) I would actually expect the Google Scholar citation counts to be low, as is often true in the humanities, but not this low; and there's nothing on JSTOR or anywhere else to suggest that his fringe ideas are even taken seriously enough to rebut. XOR'easter (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please, do not please do not exaggerate and generalize in secondary sources, this seems a partial point of view. It is read in the policies, in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics that "many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles". Please check the references in the article (i. e. JSTOR 43724942). Google Scholar or JSTOR are not they are not synonymous with notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw that JSTOR item. Being listed in "Books received" is not a signifier of notability. It's just evidence that a book exists, not that it had any influence or even attracted any attention. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities, in example:
  • He is followed by emeritus professors Charles Perrot, George Wesley Buchanan, François Bœspflug, Hermann Hunger;
  • He is followed by professors Won W. Lee, Ola Wikander, Jozef Hudec,
  • He is followed by faculty members of a University: Miroslav Černý, Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Daniel Faivre, Anne Pasquier,
  • In the Enciclopedia of Christianity is cited by emeritus professors Geoffrey W. Bromiley and emeritus professor Jaroslav Pelikan, full professor Jan Milic Lochman, honorary professor Erwin Fahlbusch, writer John Mbiti
  • He is also cited by professors: R. J. Wilkinson, Philippe Barbey, Bruno Bioul, Thomas D. Ross
  • He is cited by other scholars: Giuseppe Veneziano, Jean-Pierre Dupeyron, Didier Fontaine, Father Michael Gilligan, Xaris M. Koutelakis,
  • Gertoux also appears in international libraries as BIBSYS: 5018010, BNF: cb13548516z, ISNI: 0000 0001 1672 4722, LCCN: n2002090734, NLI: 000052631, ORCID: 0000-0001-5916-0445, RERO: 02-A012628396, SUDOC: 050812246, SEMANTIC SCHOLAR: 108067232, VIAF: 74015693, etc
  • Gertoux also stimulated studies that contradict his arguments such as those of John Laurence Gee, Peter J. Huber and Steven Ortlepp, so it can be concluded that his study has not been ignored.
  • There are other good comments of his book by E.J. Revell, H. Cazelles, D.C. Hopkins, S. Morag, E. Lipinski, M. Harl, Jean Bottéro, E.A. Livingstone, and D.N. Freedman
  • Among the publishing houses of the secondary sources, we can mention Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Brill, Editions L'Harmattan, Vita e Pensiero, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Institute of Oriental Studies, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Valparaiso University: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Baltimore, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, De Gruyter, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
• Delete. Works in fringe areas (nothing wrong with that) but has made near-zero impact. I suggest Salt too as this goes on and on. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC).
• Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics. The citation count is way below impact level and he fails other measures of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Another citation of Gertoux made by Bruce M. Metzger [1], Sarah Lind (editor of Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation) [2], New Testament Abstracts 47, pp. 553 [3], a comment by Anthony Byatt [4], by Michael John Rood [5] and by Reference and Research Book News [6]. Let me express that in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria it read that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" and I guess the condition 1, 4 and 7 is met. in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria it reads that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." In Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals it reads that 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. As I said before, I think it can defended the existence of the article. I think that to avoid interpretations to wikipedia policies, it is better to quote them verbatim. Let me also express that the claims for deletion are exaggerated, rather than presenting the evidence as it is. I suspect that the problem is not notability, rather, that the editors who request to delete do not share Gertoux's ideas, but they are against those who quote Gertoux, the publishing houses and the national and university libraries. In wikipedia policies, there is not a number of citations to establish notability. Excuse me, I'm just trying to state my arguments, not to contradict the other editors. Best regards.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, A veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism... Guy (help!) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me User:JzG because English is not my native language and I don't understand some jargon. Please explain exactly what you mean with "a veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism..."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, non-notable writers.

What you need is reliable independent secondary sources about Gertoux. Not namechecks. Guy (help!) 23:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

But we need evidence that an individual is notably influential in the world of ideas. A person can be notable even if their biography is not the subject of secondary sources, as long as their ideas are. That is not the case here. Passing mentions are not sufficient. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep--if he is notable enough to be cited in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, it won't hurt Wikipedia's reputation to have an article on him. The article needs some work though to make it flow better, but that is not a reason to delete. Also, as Jairon notes, he is recognized for his ideas, which fits him under the Creative_professionals clause.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The Encyclopedia of Christianity mentions his book. Literally all it does is include his book in a bibliography, without even saying where to look in it for any particular information, let alone evaluating it in depth. To establish that an author is notable, we need multiple reviews of multiple books each, not scattered mentions that a book happens to exist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep--G. Gertoux is a retired teacher of physics, with more than one valid academic degrees at MSc level. His recent research has been mentioned also here: an presented in international conferences organised by well known Universities, like for example this one: .--User:S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh 10:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:9472:B396:5D0C:6661 (talk) — 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:9472:B396:5D0C:6661 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

• • The first link is to a blog post that merely quotes an abstract. That is not substantial coverage or detailed analysis. And merely having presented his work at a conference counts for nothing — all academics do that. Everyone presents, everyone publishes. In order to be notable, those publications have to be influential, and we have seen no evidence of that here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think there may be a competence issue here. The article's creator cites Metzger above and in the article itself added "Influential professor Bruce M. Metzger call the Gertoux's web page as a "further scholarly information on the origins of sacred names." We'd never hype someone to make him look convincing, but the problem is Metzger never said that. That's a link added at the bottom of a statement by Metzger by the pastor who posted the statement to his church's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
• Keep Indeed the article in its current form is lengthy and gets into unnecessary details. But Gertoux has surely influenced the research horizons and is highly involved in the contemporary discussions on the sacred Tetragrammaton in its historical and theological dimensions. I think that a neat article about his scientific contributions would be more than welcome. -- pvasiliadis  13:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete His work has only a handful of citations, indicating limited impact. He very much fails the average professor test for WP:NPROF. I didn't find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and I don't see other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Let me state that I see some little troubles. As it reads in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions: "the debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments" and also it read that "when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". I guess that the recommendation take a break before voting is not being taken into account for a critical analysis in references. In example it was argumented exaggeration "virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated", "at least some independent secondary sources about the subject", "passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse" when there are just one by a professor and maybe or not with a lot of discution acceptable (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."). In this talk references are being criticized superficially and it is not specified which ones, or how they are not reliable. It is important to state how Gertoux "fails other measures of notability". About lectures, I did not find any policy to address whether the existence of conferences is or is not an indicator of notability: "is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does". In Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics i could not find any measurable intruction for quantifiable instruction to establish "near-zero impact" or "limited impact". Perhaps not in all the references there is a specific review in which it is agreed, a work cited is influential, and it is already an indicator of notability. In Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources it is read that reviews are not necessary to to give reliability to a primary source.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

?I am not sure what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC).

Sorry for the inconvenience, I just want you to specify without deviating from the topic, citing verbating the wikipedia policies and refuting the arguments of the first comment "keep" (Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities) what i made, for you hold the affirmation "how has made near-zero impact" for further discussion or to show something that I have not noticed, perhaps why those authorities, publishing houses, or libraries are unreliable.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe someone else. If there are unacceptable sources in the article, which are acceptable and which are not, and decide how much of the article is not necessary. So we convert a qualifying data into a quantifiable data, and maybe that will help. Thanks in advance for your valuable time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

C'mon. His top-cited publication appears to have 7 citations. That's not impactful, by any standard. We rarely keep academics that don't have multiple pubs with over 100 citations. (There's no specific threshold, since it varies widely by field.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to contradict you, but there are 7 citations at your discretion, so a broader answer is needed. Google Scholar only shows 7 citations, but this was talked before. It is not about impressing me with your answer, but rather taking a critical test attached to wikipedia policies that everyone can read. You are truly correct in saying that the number of citations is not required in wikipedia's policies to establish notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert of Wikipedia policies, although I use and appreciate the tool very much, in many different languages. My impression is that we risk to transform it in a sort of "social network" where only "followers" with a lot of "likes" survive. Concerning international conference papers, I find the comment "... trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does" quite polemic. I personally know many associate professors who never published international papers. I also know many university researchers who published some papers and attended conferences only at national level. So, in my opinion and experience, the statement "every academic does" is not accurate. There is an established process (mostly "double blind") to review submitted research papers before being accepted: only a few survive the step and even less authors will be invited to present their findings in international conferences. The author did it and UniZH is a well reputed international University. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 09:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)