Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:08, 28 September 2012

Marcel Leroux

Marcel Leroux (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)

I couldn't find significant coverage in google scholar or books. Google news returns various hits to various individuals. More specifically to the scientist I only found a good amount of passing mentions in the news sources (some of which were comments) but nothing providing significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

1) The first poster who suggested deletion on Sept. 7 claimed "him writing a PhDthesis on the subject, for instance, does not show his views are accepted or rue, as the article claims". Yet this comment was ignorant of the fact that Leroux PhD was republished by the WMO and distributed to all member countries. If the work had no significance, one cannot imagine why the WMO would do that!

2) Leroux was Professor Emeritus of Universities, Former Director of the Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine, CRCTA (dakar), former Director of the LCRE in Lyon France, Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques (teaching excellence).

3) Since when Google is an arbiter of scientific excellence? Many often cited papers are unfortunately terrible science...

4) Leroux university textbook has been very successful and seen 2 French editions (1996 and 2000 with a 2004 reprinting in France) and 2 editions in English (Wiley and Springer), the latest in 2010 two years after he passed away. Lamont Doherty scientist Dr. George Kukla figures among those acknowledged in the last one. Are the deletion supporters knowledgeable in meteorology, climatology? Or is it a witchhunt based on differing scientific opinion?

In any case none of the arguments presented by the supporters of deletion amount to any scientific or biographical knowledge of this French climatologist. In consequence I support the page be left alone and not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. The WMO seems to host a lot of theses, that's not really something that shows notability. 2. Being a professur emeritus doesn't help with notability, having an award for good teaching in your country doesn't show notability. The Centre de Recherche de Climatologie Tropical Africaine isn't notable. 3. I don't care whether he is a good scientist or not, just whether he is notable or not, that is a different question. 4. This isn't an AfD argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no evidence that the WMO did indeed distribute his thesis William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Connolley never read Leroux "The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa" Springer 2001 in which it is written: Based on original French edition, "Le Climat de l'Afrique Tropicale" published by Champion/Slatkine, Paris/Geneve 1983!!! Therefore Connolley's post is uninformed and misleading. ShowTimeAgain

In response to your latest: So do un-notable scientists publish successful university textbook that warranted a second edition and a second printing of the second edition? How about receiving two editions in English? It is therefore logical that his name would have an entry in Misplaced Pages. This one you carefully skirted. If not an AfD debate, what is it? This looks more and more like a witchhunt against a scientist whose research does not confirm the so called consensus. This is history rewriting disguised under the pretext of your narrow criteria defining what's notable or not. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Not notable. Oh, and STA, the fact that nobody seems to know much about him is certainly not an argument in favor of his notability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maintain Steven J Anderson, "nobody" who? I guess with criteria such as yours, Lady Gaga has more chance to be added to the climate science roster... Thank you for stopping by this year. ShowTimeAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShowTimeAgain (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: *Maintain* - there are not so many simple articles about scientists - as against pop-phenomena - that we can afford for one to be deleted. Is it significant that Leroux appears to have not wholly endorsed the currently popular (not necessarily right - cf Manchester United FC) view on climate alarmism? I would not want, say, George Monbiot removed - because he seemingly differs from Leroux. Autochthony wrote: 1950 Z, 27th September 2012. 109.154.26.60 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maintain A scientist whose texts continue to be publish internationally after his death is notable. --Africangenesis (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There is apparently no negative manifestation of such a hijacking. The scientists views are fairly presented as his views and not for the truth of the matter. What do you find objectionable? --Africangenesis (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Having 2/3 of the lede taken up by GW denialism is a problem. Even if you believe it, its clearly not a reasonable representation of his importance. Or alternatively, if that really is all he is notable for, he isn't notable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

His global warming book was published in several countries and is probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him. It is something he evidently cared deeply about. The remedy would seem to be to put it in its own section if it is inappropriate for the lead. --Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

probably the reason you and others outside his field know of him - I know nothing about him. That of itself doesn't prove he's non-notable, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who he is either, I was responding to a report at FTN, and I noticed the subject appears to be non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you know they are fairly represented according to reliable secondary sources? We have seen no reliable sources which give coverage of any aspect about this person. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely, his book is a primary not secondary source of his opinions. It should be easy enough to verify that there is a second poshumous edition of his textbooks. These sound like reasons to participate on the article, not delete it.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the notability requirements (and my previous sentence). Primary sources don't contribute to notability, only independent sources do. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you have failed to understand, that a publisher is a secondary source and every institution that continues to use his texts as the standard in his field are secondary sources of notability. If the text was only being used in courses he taught as so many professors do, we might question his notability. This posthumous publication of a second edition in another language is obviously not a vanity press. Have you got something personal against the late Marcel Leroux? --Africangenesis (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And suddenly, William Connolley appears! LOL When the little soldiers attack meets with opposition, the general shows up. Of course this bunch has a vested interest to see the page on Marcel Leroux deleted. He explained in a convincing manner the working of atmospheric circulation. And anyone who read his books can see that what he predicted is happening unlike the claims of others...ShowTimeAgain

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates