Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis-Pierre Comeau

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. RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis-Pierre Comeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. I'm no expert on such things, but his citations appear to be rather low. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, and I don't see him passing NACADEMIC. Single digit h-index, and in the most cited piece he is one of a multitude of co-authors (about 138 co-authors give or take, with 86 citation).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Has a couple of awards which aren't notable, and as mentioned citation level isn't outstanding. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as does seem to pass WP:GNG though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Theroadislong, I don't see that many and what I do see is interviews/statements. Could you point out the WP:THREE best sources you see?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical of the significance of potatoesincanada.com, spudsmart.com, and www.topcropmanager.com. Specifically, potatoesincanada.com and www.topcropmanager.com are engaged in plagiarism or alternatively some really dodgy attribution of PR material from AAFC, for instance this piece is marked as "By Potatoes in Canada" yet the identical piece is marked as "By Top Crop Manager". Your spudsmart.com piece is an interview, so not independent. This leaves us with a short CTV Atlantic coverage which is regional and is also an interview (with him and a farmer). This does not GNG make.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither look like interviews to me? Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are referring to spudsmart.com (questionable regardless) it is an interview on top of the prior April 2018 PR release. It is full of block quotes, it is almost entirely an interview, e.g. 3rd para: “In turn, soil organic ... for root growth,” says Comeau...". 4th para: "When Comeau first started at FRDC ... agriculture and soils. “I did my Masters degree in Saskatoon ... and the challenging climate.”". The short CTV Atlantic piece is 266 words in total of which 134 words are devoted to Comeau (the rest is on Slocum). Of the 134 words to Comeau, 36 are in block quotes. If you look at the actual video (this is TV), this is a two minute piece which has two speaking blurbs from Comeau at 0:40 and 1:45, a total of around 30-40 seconds of air time in a regional station.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have nothing invested in this, it was just one of 1,137 articles I reviewed in the backlog drive, if consensus is that he is not notable, so be it, I considered that there was a 50/50 chance of it being accepted and still feel that he passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed with Eostrix that the IRS coverage is not significant enough for GNG and his scholarship metrics do not pass NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:TOOSOON for academic notability for a recent (2016) PhD, with no other type of notability evident. There's enough at [5] to verify the basic details of his career but it's not independent enough to contribute towards WP:GNG-type notability. The "Canadian Society of Soil Science Pedology Award" listed in the article appears from [6] to be merely a very small grant to be used for travel to conferences, not an honor for scholarly achievement. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Agree WP:TOOSOON. I edited the draft article previously but didn't feel it satisfied notability then, and little has changed to make me change my mind. Paul W (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2021 (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.