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 no consensus. Michig ( talk) 12:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Idriss Aberkane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This demand follows a deletion process on the French Wikipédia : the local criteria WP:CGN (notability) and WP:NSU (adademics) are obviously not reached. Moreover this page seems to be an autobiographical advertising.

None of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC seems to be reached, this person almost never appears in academics review in French or English ( CAIRN : 0, Persée : 0, OpenEdition : 0, JSTOR : 0 ; ScienceDirect : 1).

About the newspaper Le Point : he is only invited and is not editorialist, even only journalist (btw usurpation of professional titles is a criminal offence in France).

I apologise for my English and eventually the lacks of my knowledge about the deletion policy in en.wp. Кумкум ( talk) 17:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Edit: the page in fr.wp is deleted (Keep: 2 / Delete: 11). Кумкум ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Edit Edit: the history of this deletion process (on fr.wp) shows some disposable and/or single purpose accounts such as Eiram P, Eisongosona, Timinette and Jasamdarja, and several IPs ( 2.8.108.33, 77.152.115.14, 31.35.183.167, 134.157.4.53) and others. They were active roughly at the same time, and have all the same kind of french and the same behavior. Then, I would like to draw your attention to this article on a extremely local and non-notable blog where we learn that we are malicious and anonym hands and that Aberkane is no less than a genius, who said the very next day that this article was excellent. Two days later he calls to stuff the discussion vote. I am not a connoisseur of the AfD processes on en.wp but I hope those elements give you clarifications about some of things you will see there. Кумкум ( talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Sam Sailor: : I'm on the French Wikipedia since 2008. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Кумкум is openly lying. Here is a formal proof that Idriss Aberkane is an Editorialist https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bx4sWiWIMAAAmw9.jpg anybody knowing Le Point can trivially confirm that this page is that of editorials. see also this link https://twitter.com/PhilippeVandel/status/512896173552975872/photo/1 Propagating false news is a real criminal offense in France, for which charges could be pressed. A group of French people is trying to defame the French page, and to export it to the en.wiki one. Expect other unsourced defamations in the future. This one, already, could be accounted for legally as it is a blatant lie. Also, I checked the last issue of Le Point (Nov. 5th 2015) and Mr. Aberkan's editorial was on page 20. His editorials seem to be published monthly and are not to be confused with his web articles, which are separated. I also found, among many others, this intervention on CNBC Africa http://www.cnbcafrica.com/video/?bctid=4507882588001 Timinette ( talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Timinette ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I found news and journal articles featuring him: here, here, here, here. It is easy to find other sources that are not as reliable as these appear to be, including videos of his Ted talk. He does not show up much in G-Scholar and not at all in JSTOR, but these may not be as accurate for non-US researchers. I would learn toward a weak keep but I don't claim to have done sufficient research beyond what I report here. LaMona ( talk) 01:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Hi LaMona, thank you for your research. Here are some clarifications about the links you brought:
  • Le Café pédagogique is an interview, therefore a WP:PRIMARY source
  • The article in Mrmondialisation: the author is unknown, and this site does not seems to be famous in any domain (I personnaly verify since 2013 the notability of academics on the fr.wp and I never seen it)
  • La Nouvelle République is a very local press, and covers 5 départements (101 départements in France)
  • Fondapol is a conservative think tank, and this link is not a secondary source and does not concern M. Aberkane. Кумкум ( talk) 16:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The assertion that Aberkane does not fit with Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines is a tone-deaf interpretation. Even more than tone-deaf, it is wrong.

To refresh the memory of the administrators:

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

Examples "worthy of notice", "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded":

A broadcast expert on CNBC Africa: http://www.cnbcafrica.com/video/?bctid=4507882588001

A paid speaker for several organizations.

AT Kearney: a top 5 global consulting firm

His profile on their site https://www.atkearney.com/web/digital-business-roundtable-emea-2015/speakers/-/asset_publisher/JZbGEm6EDwNy/content/aberkane-idriss-speaker?_101_INSTANCE_JZbGEm6EDwNy_redirect=%2Fweb%2Fdigital-business-roundtable-emea-2015%2Fspeakers

His Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BeVBKnlErU&list=PLtu-il4eH2D97KRDkugcpHnZbspQlj9jW&index=

His published work at France's Wired, Le Point. http://www.lepoint.fr/invites-du-point/idriss-j-aberkane/

I don't see a problem here. He seems legitimate to me, and his ideas are worth spreading. Malessandro ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Malessandro ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

"A paid speaker for several organizations." How can you prove it? Кумкум ( talk) 00:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Кумкум ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

"Kymkym" are we having semantical arguments, or are we engaging in fairness and an adherence to the notability clause of wikipedia? Aberkane clearly fits within the notability clause. In the spirit of the word "paid" is the notion that he has been an "invited" speaker, as is evident in any variety of youtube and google searches. Aside from those whose salaries are public, wikipedia does not require, not urge, nor suggest, the need to prove payment as a measure of notability. I fear that you are too enthusiastic about your deleting prowess, and perhaps should reframe your opinion on this matter. Malessandro ( talk) 15:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Malessandro ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment These two references from national newspaper articles “le monde “ Aberkane

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/09/10/la-crevette-la-libellule-et-l-araignee-au-secours-de-l-economie-francaise_4751949_3244.html

http://www.fondapol.org/debats/le-monde-la-connaissance-le-desir-et-la-competence/ du 28 mai 2015 Article read in full on Fondapol

full article for newspaper subscribers: http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/05/28/l-economie-de-la-connaissance-une-histoire-d-amour-et-de-savoirs_4642775_3232.html?xtmc=aberkane&xtcr=2 -- Timinette ( talk) 09:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Timinette ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Кумкум obviously seems to have personal grief against Idriss Aberkane. He is not researching the truth. He is just trying to depreciate this person on the internet. As it was said He is openly lying about the fact that He is not a journalist ( of course he is). He is also publicly insulting this person on this page ("mediocre etudiant perpétuel"). Insults, defamation and denigration are condemned by the french law... The english page of Idriss Aberkane is also very different from it's french copy (I may say "was" because the french page was deleted). ( Eisongosona ( talk) 10:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)) Eisongosona ( talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I feel that many statements in favor of keeping the page have missed the point, and some of them seem purposedly misleading. I’d like to add some clarifications from my own perspective.

1. Some of the articles listed herein on defense of keeping the page are poorly relevant, as detailled for some of them by Кумкум. Indeed, some articles were published in local news, not national. Others are either primary sources, or weak secondary sources were Aberkane is marginally referred to. Finally, the description of Le Point as « France’s Wired » by Malessandro is incorrect. Le Point is a generalist magazine, covering all aspects of current news with a low level of depth and technicity. It often adopts a populist tone and slightly xenophobic front page. Comparing it with a reference tech medium such as Wired is erroneous at the very least.

2. Beyond the debate about the quantity and quality of the source, I think there is a confusion between digital visibility and intellectual influence and legacy. Yes, the subject of this page did have published some journal articles, and some journal articles about him were also written. But for a person presented as « editor » and « entrepreneur », having written a few notes and articles is the least that can be expected. Are we going to write a wikipedia page on every soccer player who successfully attempted a penalty kick? I have not seen any sign of profound and long lasting influence of Aberkane’s work on the intellectual or business landscape (academic prize, taught theory, contribution largely commented by his peers, business model or achievements commented on by top business media, etc). Therefore, I don’t think a biographical page on Idriss Abekane is yet relevant for Wikipedia.

3. Several accusations have been made of manipulation, plot, hidden agenda on fr.wp and I’ve seen the beginning of it here too. It is tiresome to have to comment on such petty accusations. Yet, it is a fact that the large majority of the wikipedia accounts arguing to keep the Aberkane page on fr.wk had no other previous contributions to wikipedia, as if they had been created for the sole purpose of keeping that page. It is a fact that Idriss Aberkane himself participated in the discussion of his own page, hinting people of legal repercussion. It is a fact that someone claiming to be a sociologue running a collective experiment pretended on fr.wk to have uncovered a scientist-led conspiracy aiming at taking down Aberkane, publicly providing (erroneous) professional information about wikipedia contributors. It is a fact, finally, that Aberkane tentatively talked his twitter followers into « defending his page », as reported by Кумкум earlier. Taken all those observations together, this leads me to have a strong suspicion of promotional content in that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksihw ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Pinging previous article editors for possible feedback ( Revent— Timtrent— Clone200— Sfan00 IMG— Postcard Cathy— Fimatic— Waacstats— Wavelength— Ser Amantio di Nicolao— Stamptrader) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. I only found two of what look like reliable in-depth independent sources on the subject [1] [2] (one in French but that makes no dfference for notability). But two may be enough for WP:GNG. On the other hand, the article needs a lot of cleanup. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete, Based on Кумкум's critique of the lanouvellerepublique source, only [3] seems to hold, and one source is just not enough. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment : référence Mail & Guardian Africa's http://mg.co.za/article/2015-09-23-the-geeks-shall-inherit-the-earth -- Timinette ( talk) 09:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per sources from Timinette including above. I'm always a little suspicious of agenda in these cases where someone shows up at AfD and says "We deleted this off XYZ-language Wikipedia and you need to delete the English one too." His article is a mess but he meets the GNG of the English-language Wikipedia. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete My main points : 1. The page is very poorly sourced and the two sources are irrelevant to the topic or do not meet Wikipedia standards. 2. The durable influence and impact of Aberkane as a thinker or as an entrepreneur in the society is not demonstrated. 3. Based on the heated debate on the french version of this page, I highly a suspect of promotional content. Saksihw ( talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - He is quite well known in France and in French-speaking Belgium (where I reside). I have received at least one or two mails recommending some of his videos. Unlike alleged above, he IS listed as a journalist by Le Point. http://www.lepoint.fr/journalistes-du-point/idriss-j--aberkane. However, his videos and articles that I've seen appear to be more sensationalist than scientifically rigorous -- Jacques de Selliers ( talk) 18:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC) - Modified -- Jacques de Selliers ( talk) 09:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: As I mentionned in my more detailed text above, what is at stake is not determining whether he did write or not in Le Point, as this is pretty obvious. What is at stake here is knowing whether or not, as a thinker and an entrepreneur, he has a noticeable and long-lasting influence on the intellectual and business worlds, thereby justifying a page on Wikipedia. Saksihw ( talk) 11:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Being a journalist at Le Point is not enough to have a Wikipedia page. Looking at the "sources" provided by the supporters of the page, I am still not satisfied: it is not enough to give a bunch of links to show the digital visibility, it is important to provide reliable secondary sources, as explained here: Wikipedia Policy. So far, I haven't seen enough sources (not links!) in this debate nor on Wikipedia page. Moreover, his french page has been deleted and I don't see why its English one should be kept (Idriss Aberkane is not very famous in France and is even less in the rest of the world!) Alaleutyr ( talk) 23:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The sources found by David Eppstein and Timinette are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, admittedly this is marginal, but the sources listed by David Eppstein are enough as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:23, 29 November 2015 (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.