Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raoul Weiler

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Weiler

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

As written, this seems to utterly fail Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Poor referenced article, being a club president is long ways from being Notable. failing WP:N - Krutim 11:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of any kind of notability. Academic publishing record shows only one paper with more than single-digit citations, far below the standard of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I really don't see the notability under either WP:PROF or WP:GNG and I've done a little of my own searching around and not com up with more.

This !vote is weak because the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Wikipedia that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT. I'm willing to give a subject a little more benefit of the doubt in this kind of case.

Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. Additionally, I have met Weiler but I don't believe we ever had a conversation. —mako ๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per I am One of Many. Thank you for doing a much more thorough job than I did. I did a literature search and didn't come back with much but I believe you. Even if I was doubtful, the World Academy of Art and Science is easily enough on its own. Thanks for figuring this out! —mako ๛ 07:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is an emeritus professor and I think a substantial portion of his notable work is not in English, so it will take a little digging to make a nice article on him. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He meets WP:PROF #3 as a member of World Academy of Art and Science [1]. Perhaps with this new finding, User:Benjamin Mako Hill and David Eppstein might want to reexamine this case? The academic literature also appears to support WP:PROF #1.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If this academy takes people such as Weiler as members, I have to assume it is on the basis of their activism and not on their scientific contributions. (This is not intended as a put-down in any way of Weiler, merely a statement that what I can see of his scientific publication record does not adequately explain his membership in this group.) As such, it is probably not the specific type of society described in WP:PROF#C3 and we should look for a demonstration of notability via WP:GNG rather than via WP:PROF. So where is the in-depth coverage of Weiler that would be required for that? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - member of World Academy of Art and Science, President of the Club of Rome, Gusi Peace Prize laureate, wrote or edited 12 books, president of the Royal Society of Flemish Engineers, VP of European Academy of Sciences and Arts, UN World Summit participants twice, now working with UNESCO. To me this is a case where even if no one thing is a slam dunk, he has so many indicators of notability that I don't have trouble believing we'd find sufficient sources if they were all in English. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[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.