Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Jovanovic

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Discounting the opinion of the blocked socks Micha Jo and Wikyam, and the likely sock Alyona2011 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Micha Jo). Sandstein 18:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Jovanovic

[edit]

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

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)[reply]


  • A book which is published and properly cited. See in article the refs 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,14,15,17,20
  • Scholarship articles or books. See refs 4,16,18,21
  • News organizations. See refs 11,12,19,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,36,38,39.
  • Plus we have Documentaries or TV shows 42,43. So the reliable sources criteria are well satisfied. Micha Jo (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources are high quality newspapers:
  • Les Echos[1] the major French daily business newspaper with 130,000 readers,
  • Le Temps[2] the major French language daily Swiss newspaper with 127,000 readers,
  • The Philippine Daily Inquirer[3] considered as the Philippine newspaper of record,
  • Mediapart[4] an influencial news website with 140,000 subscribers, with editions in French, English and Spanish, and which revealed some of the major recent French political scandals
  • Atlantico[5] an influencial French news website, with 15 full time journalists and 4 million unique readers per month. Micha Jo (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.lesechos.fr/03/06/2016/LesEchosWeekEnd/00034-010-ECWE_cette-femme-veut-revolutionner-la-finance.htm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.letemps.ch/economie/portrait-banquiere-lorigine-crise-financiere. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/219648/have-a-talk-with-your-guardian-angel/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ https://blogs.mediapart.fr/jolemanique/blog/070713/pierre-jovanovic-retour-au-standard-or-dantal-fekete. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/crise-blythe-masters-banquiere-jp-morgan-femme-plus-puissante-monde-58434.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • 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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      @Anne Delong: Please have a look at the reference below from The Philipine Daily Inquirer. It is in English and from a major and reputable newspaper. Accordingh to Wikipedia, it is the Philippine's newspaper of record. It is a serious reference to one of Jovanovic's books, and it is more than a passing reference, and it has extensive factual information about the subject. I picked this one for your consideration because it is not in French. Maybe it could bring you to a "Keep" vote? Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Micha Jo, the article tells that Mr. Jovanic is a French journalist and that he has written a book. The rest of the article is about other people and about the general topic of seeing angels. I would not call this extensive, but it appears to be an acceptable source - you could insert it as a reference after the sentence that says he is a French journalist.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See WP:INDEPTH, though admittedly that is part of a guideline on events. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Please have a look at the new high quality and in-depth sources in the references below. They are all from high quality daily newspapers of news websites, in France, Switzerland, the Philipines. These sources alors are sufficient to establish notability! Micha Jo (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Andrewa: Thanks for accepting my correction on the number of copies sold. A question: in your opinion what is the precise reason why you think that the article should not go to main namespace? Could you please be more specific on what should be improved? Thanks Micha Jo (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (change of !vote). As noted above, my move to draft was based on a misreading (blush) of the source. But he is not just notable for that one book, for example my Google of "Blythe Masters" "Default Swap" "Pierre Jovanovic" returned 2,290 ghits and the first few pages all seem relevant, many of them secondary sources in French describing his book on Blythe Masters. Controversial yes, and I notice that the aforementioned article does not currently mention the book. (Both articles are of course under wp:BLP.) But if he fails our notability criteria (and I am skeptical of that) then the criteria are wrong, and the article does seem now to meet our standards of sourcing... as one would hope following the impartial review preceding its move to article namespace. The repeated deletion and now salting of the French Wikipedia article is puzzling, but we are not bound to delete an article based on that decision any more than they are bound to create one if we keep it here, and even the French make mistakes sometimes. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa, can you clarify which source you're referring to? Bradv 06:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Blush again but I deserve it) I looked at the two sources given as references for the claim that his book Enquête sur L'existence des Anges Gardiens sold more than 800,000 copies. One of them does support this claim exactly, but the other says more than a million... plus d’un million d’exemplaires... and my French should have been up to seeing that and it now hits me right in the eye but I missed it. Please do not tell any of my high school French teachers, they had such high hopes for me, let alone my Professor at UNE... As I say above, it puzzled me at the time but completely undermined my faith in the review (which was by a reviewer who does speak French but does not claim even an intermediate level... but as she is Canadian I suspect it's not too bad). And this was all an error on my part. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa, what is your thought as to the quality of these sources? To me Kernews appears to be some sort of interview or blog, and La Depeche appears to be a biography submitted by a reader. Neither of these sources meet the level of quality journalism we expect in sources to establish notability. Bradv 13:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not using them to directly establish notability, and neither is the article. They're just being cited to substantiate the claim that this book has sold that many copies (I'm inclined to go with the million, that being the more recent figure by some months, but agree that there's a case for going with the smaller one and saying more than). I think they're adequate for that. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa, I assumed your change in vote was based upon these sources. Surely you can't be using Google hits as evidence of notability? Bradv 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The change in !vote was based purely on re-evaluation of the basis for it. My move back to draft was based on my horror at thinking (incorrectly) that the sourcing still included... in the very first reference I looked at... a source that just did not support the claim made. My keep (which was already part of the previous !vote in a way) is based on several factors one of which is the review by L293D who although relatively new has already proved to be wise, hardworking and here. The ghits are relevant too, not just because of their number but because of their quality, without which the number is meaningless. They suggest that the book on whose title I searched is significant... perhaps even notable in its own right. But I'll have a closer look at them when I get time. The number of sales claimed of the other book is significant too, and as I said I think the sources are sufficient to establish this. It may still turn out to be an elaborate fraud, but my thinking is that the risk of that is very small indeed, and that Wikipedia is better taking that risk and keeping the article. I respect that you probably don't agree. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv Both La Dépêche and Kernews are legitimate newspapers, not blogs.
  • According to French Wikipedia, la Dépêche du Midi is a newspaper covering the southwest of France (Ariège, Aude, Aveyron, Haute-Garonne, Gers, Lot, Hautes-Pyrénées, Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne and Nouvelle-Aquitaine), with 17 different daily editions, and has a distribution od 150,000 copies. It was founded in 1870. It is very influencial in French politics and often cited in national press or television. The holding company, Groupe La Dépêche also owns a news agency. In total, 1650 employees.
  • According to French Wikipedia, Kernews is a French regional radio + newspaper covering South Brittany and Vendée (La Baule, Saint-Nazaire, Nantes, Pornic, Noirmoutier et Vannes), founded 12 years ago. The first 3 sections of the reference article where the million copies sold is mentioned is written by the admin. The rest is an interview of Pierre Jovanovic. It is difficult to assess the influence of this mixed media, but it also interviews presidential candidates like François Asselineau, members of Parliament like Didier Julia, and regional businesspeople. Micha Jo (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Being "famous" is not the same as notable. Just because someone is known, doesn't mean anything for Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae:Notability is discussed above in detail. Here are some numbers: 12 books published, 800,000+ sold, in 7 languages, cited in 13 independent books and 16 secondary articles, 4 scholar articles or books, 2 TV documentaries or shows, 3 million unique visitors per year on his blog, 27,500 twitter followers. The criteria for WP:NAUTHOR are largely verified. Note: numbers have changed a little as I have discovered new sources, such as the prestigious newspapers Les Echos, Atlantico, Le Temps, L'évènement. Micha Jo (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Mister Jovanovic is a new breed of French independent thinkers. He is out of the mainstream and tries to defend himself from establishment critics. At a time when whistleblowers help people understand the truth hidden by some politicians, we have a duty to help and defend them. Wikipedia is the temple of the defense of truth and sincere contributors who bring real added value to our dear earth planet. [User:Wikyam|Wikyam]] (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) — Wikyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pierre_Jovanovic&oldid=868515389"