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. The consensus here is that he does not pass WP:BIO or any of its related policies/guidelines. Shereth 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hunout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This Google search reveals 2,400+ hits on him here There are ample third party sources on him; this Citizendium article even references a paper Hunout wrote here--see the first article. He's clearly notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether people are referencing his article, but are people writing about him. Only the later gives us source we can use in the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a strange case. According to it's website, it seems that the journal that he is involved with (The International Scope Review) has not appeared since 2006. The Web of Knowledge lists just one article by him, cited a grand total of 1 times (searching for "Hunout", so I cannot have missed articles because of additional initials, for instance). If I search for all citaions (i.e. also to works not themselves included in WoK), I find one additional citation to his thesis (by himself in the one article included in WoK) and one to an article in The International Scope Review. Most of the entries listed on the Google search linked by Artene50 are entries in Wikis (perhaps/probably made by the subject himself?) and networking sites (certainly made by the subject himself). Many references listed in the article are from the The International Scope Review and it is not clear how independent this is of him (the fact that he is on the Board and even its founder does not necessarily mean that his articles get in without any scrutiny. Any well-managed scientific journal will scrutinize articles from its editors as carefully -if not more- than those from other contributors to avoid the impression of favoritism. I am the founding editor of a scientific journal myself, so I know what I'm talking about....). Hunout has apparently also published several books, which might be notable, but it is strange that none of those have ever been cited in WoK. In short, the only serious reference brought up till now is the one to Citizendium, and the fact that they cite an article by Hunout does not really make him notable. Unless other sources would crop up, I'd probably go for delete, but will abstain for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As no additional sources seem to be forthcoming, I am going for delete. --Crusio (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. His work on job evaluation is well known and has been used as source in academic programmes and courses. The Review he is involved in is very demanding and his conferences as well. The bibliography mentions several publications at third parties. So he is notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.235.215.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Could you perhaps provide sources for the things you mention? If his works are used as text books in courses, that would establish notability, but there should be a way to verify that claim. The "Review" seems to be moribund. The current bibliography only mentions some works by himself and they don't seem to have had much if any impact. Perhaps I'm wrong, in that case, please present the evidence. --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Crusio, unless more positive evidence to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO is found. As Crusio said, WebOfScience shows precious little in the way of the subject't work being cited by other scholars. GoogleScholar also produces very few citations[1], with top hits of 4, 3 and 1. I am not seeing evidence of passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Closer examination of the Google scholar results makes the numbers look smaller: the "top hit" of 4 citations appears to be really one citation, in a paper by Frédéric Schoenaers, repeated 4 times. In addition I tried (by Googling "hunout syllabus") but failed to find any use of his works in the classroom. The closest I found was a false hit on a sociology class close to here which unrelatedly includes a web poll of top sociologists in which some respondent (perhaps Hunout himself) has added Hunout's name to a list of larger luminaries. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. Crusio, you are mixing up several things. The Review is not moribund, does not publish every year unless it has appropriate (of sufficient high quality) material. New Editorial Board for 2008-2010 shows pundit names like Inglehart. If you look at other Wikipedia articles like e.g. Amitai Etzioni bibliography it is also made of their own works. The issue is not to list a large number of publications but visibility, and visibility is indeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hunout is the President of a NGO not a pure scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As for that link in Citizendium, it got there as a copy of the Wikipedia article at the time [2]. We have removed it long since, they have not yet done so.DGG (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crusio, Nsk92, David Eppstein... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete. The discussion must be fair. Saying that "Hunout added his own name" is badly intended. There is no evidence of that. He is not a pure scholar but a manager and a policymaker, and as such cannot be seen through the same criteria. Even so he published with Moscovici, who is the pope of social psychology. His next conference shows a very interesting line-up of contributors, which shows notability. Let's keep him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uh, what? Is it even ethical for us to do that? Ford MF (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can unearth a ref of substance. BLPs need to be absolutely the best sourced articles we have and this is far from that. Ford MF (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete. Those critiques may have hidden thoughts haven't they? The organization Crusio belongs to does not have a single reference, and the largest expert for social capital, Robert Putnam, who is world known, has only four, and a tiny bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC) note: 2nd !vote by this user in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment. I made a research on Google and, limiting myself to the first 10 pages, I found a considerable number of references for Hunout. Hunout was cited, mentioned, published or commented by authoritative institutions, editors, libraries, institutions, authors, sites, and blogs. He was mentioned by the World Bank, who is the authority for social capital, the area of expertise of Hunout. He was called by Oxfam International to sign along with 50 other economists a call to the G8 Ministers to end poverty, which clearly shows notability regarding social inclusion. He is mentioned in the book "L'Europe ou le grand bazar de l'immigration", by CNAM, by the French Ministry of Justice, by the International Review of Social History (Cambridge University Press). In a 2007 speech to the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission, the speakers says "Social capital is a contested term that has been defined many ways although I like the simple version that it “...is a set of attitudes and mental dispositions that favour co-operation within society (that)… equals the spirit of community” (Patrick Hunout, Social Capital Foundation)." Hunout is quoted by Joel Alleyne in his paper on "social networks and social media" (2007). He is analysed by Answers.com, NationMaster and CapitalSocial.eu for his work related to civil society, communitarianism and social capital. He was referred to by National Bank of Brazil for his work with Ziltener on the euro and the advent of a new European Leviathan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) note also: that ip 62.235.215.231 (registered to Belgian ISP not far from Terhulpen, Belgium) copyedited Jessika Folkerts's last comment as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pete, smells like socks to me. Nsk92 (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file an RFCU (depending on outcome) after the AfD closes, if wants to start an SSP that's fine by me.c Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There is a misunderstanding, I am the same user, voted only once, am responding to the arguments cited above. I am no expert at using this system. Let's stay by the facts, any arguments? And Nsk92, your expression isn't very encyclopedic. Jessika Folkerts

You "voted only once"? What do you call this[3] and this[4]? Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to reformulate the titles of my interventions (I also see that one user expresses a vote at the end of his/her message). But what's about the content? Jessika Folkerts —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 14 June 2008 (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.