Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Xardel

Add links
Source: 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 keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Xardel‎

AfDs for this article:
Dominique Xardel‎ (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)

Non-notable as per

WP:BIO Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears to be best known as a French academic. He was Director of
    talk) 06:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
His works, including that book, appear to be very very sparsely cited.
talk) 09:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
He is not "best known" for anything. I see no source that refers to Xardell as former editor in chief. He has not published 74 books either; the WorldCat listing contain many duplicate entries and translations of existing titles, and many of the entries listed look like very obscure books of no obvious importance. The 6 sources cited in the current BLP don't come anywhere close to demonstrating notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've re-written the article from scratch including new sources and quotes for sources that otherwise are difficult to access, as a courtesy for verification purposes. --
    talk) 00:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It still does not come even remotely close to qualifying as notable as per
WP:AUTHOR, not to mention that almost all of the author's (obscure) works were written in French and have little if any relevance for English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
From what I can see the claim is that he meets
talk) 09:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I agree that if the argument for notability were based on
WP:AUTHOR, the subject still would not meet the rquirements. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
His name does not appear on this faculty list for ESSEC.[2] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has an active faculty page at ESSEC and the source below says he is current there. If you want to verify it why don't you call the University or email them to confirm. --
talk) 16:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Given that he is not listed on the faculty page, it would be more accurate to say that the entry you found is an inactive faculty page. But either way, having a faculty page, active or not, does not help to establish notability as per
WP:ACADEMIC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Or, the faculty list you found is not up to date. --
talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It's the college's faculty website list -- what more definitive source is there? Xardel has allegedly been at that institute since the 70s, so I fail to see any validity to the argument about the site being out of date. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is based at ESSEC but we also know he teaches at different schools around the world. --
talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • 1960-1977: Various management positions in companies such as Union Carbide, Julhiet Group, Unilever, Union Express and Time-Life International
  • 1978-1988: Director of the ESSEC
  • 1981-1990: Editor of the Harvard-Expansion
  • 1984-1991: President of the European Association of Intercultural Management
  • 1988-1991: Director General of the International School of Business
  • 1992-1999: Director of Marketing at ESSEC Ms.
  • Since 2001: Director of International Development, ESSEC
According to
talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
(also I would encourage readers to see this version of the article which contains additional information deleted by Rhode Island Red). --
talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
He does not qualify even under criterion #6, which states:
"Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g. being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)."
His associate deanship at ESSEC would not qualify -- it is specifically precluded. His alleged directorship of ESSEC would not apply because ESSEC is not "a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center, which is not a part of a university". His alleged presidency of the EAIM would not qualify becuase the institution is not "a notable national or international scholarly society"; in fact a Google search did not provide any evidence that an organization by this name ever existed.[3] The "International School of Business" would not qualify either because it is not a presidency or chancellorship, and the institution does not seem to be notable (I couldn't even find any mention of it on Google[4]). Furthermore, the subject has received negligible coverage in reliable secondary sources, except perhaps for passing mention in a couple of old articles (and passing mention is never sufficient for establishing notability). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ESSEC would probably qualify as "a major academic institution" (WP:ACADEMIC #6) of which he was Director for 10 years. According to the New York Times, ESSEC is "one of France's most respected graduate business schools."[5] According to our very own Wikipedia article ESSEC is "one of Europe's top business schools." It says "Director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)" - ESSEC is not a branch of a University, it is independent. The quotes above show it to be "highly regarded", and could find more if needed. --
talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That argument fails as well. ESSEC is a college, not an independent research institute, and Xardel did not hold "the post of President or Chancellor" at ESSEC, so he does not satisfy criterion #6 in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Read more closely please and try to focus on the key details. I’ll repeat again, criterion #6 says “director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)”. ESSEC is not an independent research institute; it is a business college. Criterion #6 would require that Xardel hold/have held the position of President or Chancellor at ESSEC, which is not the case. Secondly, Xardel’s official CV shows that he was not even sole director of ESSEC; he was merely “Director of International Affairs” for the MBA program.[7] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was Director of the ESSEC from 1978-1988 [8], his current position is different. His online CV doesn't even start until 1989 so obviously it is incomplete and not a good source for determining prior to 1989. We know he was working at ESSEC prior to 1989 from multiple independent reliable sources. The school does primary research with support from the ESSEC Research Center, created in 1963, in other words ESSEC is a research center. --
talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
A dead link and an internal reference to a WP article with no sources. Swell. Perhaps you can sell the case for notability to French WP; he's clearly insufficiently notable for inclusion in English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to a number of sources [9][10][11][12] , Xardel was "Editor-in-Chief of the European Harvard Business Review (Harvard L'Expansion)". This would pass
    talk) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
First, none of the sources you provided are
WP:RS, and an independent secondary source would be required in this case. Secondly, his resume states that he was simply an "editor" (whihc does not qualify based on criterion #6); not editor in chief (and there are many inconsistencies between the entries listed in his resume and the entries floating around on these sketchy looking websites. Lastly, the publication in question is called "Harvard L'Expansion", not "European Harvard Business Review", and I see no evidence of that the publication is notable. Overall, another failed argument. This individual is clearly not notable so why are you grasping at straws? Are you affiliated with Amway? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You have a history of deleting editing Amway content on Wikipedia. You are on some sort of anti-Amway crusade (perhaps for good, I dunno, but it's part of your edit history). I on the other hand have a history of being actively engaged in dozens of AfDs because I enjoy saving articles by giving them every possible opportunity by doing the hard research. I don't care if this article is deleted, I've never edited an Amway or MLM article on Wikipedia before. I care that this article is given a fair shot and opportunity and not ramroded by someone with an anti-Amway agenda.
Back to the sources: Those are reliable secondary sources. Using a primary source CV isn't how we do things on Wikipedia. "Harvard L'Expansion" was the European edition of the Harvard Business Review, it has since changed (no longer French but split into German and some others) but it was certainly notable in its day. --
talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry if you were offended by my bringing up the possibility of an Amway connection, but since the BLP subject clearly does not meet any of the notability criteria, I was stumped as to why you would keep bending over backwards to keep the article from being deleted. On the flipside, you don't do yourself any favors by saying that I have a history of deleting Amway content (in fact, I wrote a pretty big [and dare I say it, very well written] chunk of the article on Amway) or that I'm on a "crusade" (which implies a POV violation and an assumption of bad faith). So let's just call it even and move on.
Back to the content issues. First, it does not appear that he was ever "editor-in-chief" and the sources you've provided are of low quality. Per policy, primary sources from the BLP subject are sometimes allowable, as long as the material is not unduly self-serving, particualrly when it comes to CV details. The BLP subject's own CV indicates that he was not editor in chief, and this contradicts what's listed in the dubious sources you provided, which incidentally are not
WP:ACADEMIC
states "it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject", which is also applicable in this case, so even if he were editor-in-chief of this obscure and long defunct journal, the case for notability would still be gossamer thin.
I see no justification for saying that the deletion nomination is being "ramroded (sic)"; quite the contrary -- you've made a Herculean effort to make the slimmest of cases for notability and still haven't succeeded. Deletion is an easy call in this case. But since you don't care if the article is deleted, that simplifies matters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was offended by your suggestion of COI during a content dispute and wrote some things that I have since stricken. I care that the rules are followed, not what the outcome is. There will be more people involved in this AfD before it's over so don't be in such a rush to think it is now "simple", it will last weeks. We have differences of opinion about the sources and rules, that is what AfD is about, fact finding and rules applications. I feel like you are giving me a hard time for researching sources and having an opinion that you disagree with.
Regarding the sources: One source is an academic book publishers website, and the other a professionally published book. These are institutions known for editorial oversight. It's true his CV doesn't say "Chief" but since we don't use primary sources we can't rely on the CV when there are reliable secondary sources. This is a well established principle on Wikipedia, if Mr. Xardel's CV said he was President of Paris University in 1975, you would not allow that information unless there was a secondary source; likewise, it's unfair to cherry pick including primary source info because it's convenient to your argument. There could be reasons why his CV doesn't say Chief, we just don't know, that is why we rely on secondary sources. --
talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that this would have been a smoother process if there had been more input from other editors. I have never seen an AfD with so few participants. All of our arguing back and forth won’t amount to much if we don’t get more input. However, I think if we did have more eyes, this would be a straightforward delete. With all the scouring for sources and scraping of the bottom of the barrel, you still haven’t managed to put forth anything that convincingly establishes notability.

The 4 sources that you insist meet

WP:RS are a mile away IMO. This site[13] looks like nothing more than a repost of Xardel’s resume; it’s not an article on Xardel; it doesn’t involve journalism; there is no evidence of any editorial oversight or fact-checking -- it’s a low quality source. The other 3 sites are no better.[14][15][16]

The other issue here is that the BLPs subject’s personal CV posted at his faculty page at ESSEC does not list him as editor-in-chief, and it can't be simply assumed that the other sources trump Xardel's own CV. And lastly, the journal in question is obscure, low-impact, and long defunct; and I see no examples of anything from the journal itself that indicates that Xardel was ever editor in chief. BTW, this source seems to indicate that Jacques Barraux was EIC of L'Expansion during the time when Xardel was allegedly EIC (i.e., 1987).[17]

So, in summary, there is not sufficient unambiguous evidence that he was editor in chief; the journal itself does not seem to be notable; and even if Xardel was editor in chief and even if the journal were notable, he still wouldn't qualify for a WP page because

WP:ACADEMIC states: “"it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject". There is a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Anyhow, we've talked this to death already so let's just hope we get some participants or we'll probably have to re-list the AfD nomination. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't agree with your characterization of the sources at all, a Parisian university academic book publisher, a university faculty page and a professionally published book are not a 'mile away' from being RS. But let's not keep repeating, our positions are stated on that point.
This is an interesting source you found[18], it shows a number of things. It shows that Jacques Barraux was Editor-in-Chief of a magazine called "The Company" (L'Entreprise) for the March 87' issue. But Harvard-L'Expansion uses quarterly dates, such as the "Spring 87" issue mentioned in the source, so they are obviously not the same magazine, Jacques Barraux was not Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard magazine, according to this source. The source also calls the Harvard magazine a "prestigious" quarterly which undermines notions of it being obscure. BTW I believe the magazines are still in print and can be seen L'Entreprise and voila L'Expansion - perhaps even the present-day version of the former Harvard magazine. Both L'Entreprise and L'Expansion are owned by the same parent company, L'Express.
Remarkable what turns up with some searching on google.fr. I'm hoping a native French speaker will appear who can help us further. So long as new information is coming to light the AfD will stay open. The process is "smooth", we are doing exactly what should be done: research, investigate, discuss. --
talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the actual notability requirements both as academic and author. Cited in Responding to Globalization Aseem Prakash; Jeffrey A. Hart; from Routledge, 2000. The cavil as to whether an "editor" is "editor in chief" is a nice tangent having zero bearing here. Meanwhile "Harvard L'Expansion" does indeed seem to be a publication for HBS alumni [23] making that nit a tad useless. Collect (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -
The topic meets
WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dominique_Xardel&oldid=1137794710"