- 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. Sandstein 18:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Eric Roux (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)
He receives passing mention in news articles (because he is serving as a spokesperson) but none of the significant coverage required for WP:BASIC Nblund talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Comment - Each Wikipedia has its own guidelines, but for context, this article was previously deleted from French Wikipedia: fr:Discussion:Éric Roux/Suppression. It appears both article were created by the same editor, meaning the English language article was created after the French one had already been deleted.
- Additionally, there is some odd behavior from a closely-knit group of editors involved in this article, and other CESNUR-related articles, across multiple Wikipedia projects (such as es:Bitter Winter). This raises WP:COI concerns, which I have mentioned on the article's talk page. Hence the !vote template. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I don't think the article should be deleted at all. Eric Roux is well known as a religious leader and an activist, at least in Europe. This is backed up by several valid and reliable sources that you can find on Internet (whatever you may think of him or of Scientology). He is described as "unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives" by scholar Donald Westbrook in SAGE Journals, “The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404. SAGE journal is definitely a well recognized academic source. He also has several pages about him in Journal of CESNUR in an article written by Professor Bernadette Rigall-Cellard. I know you seem to have problems with Journal of CESNUR, but beside the fact that their editorial board is made of well internationally recognized scholars in the field of new religions, Bernadette Rigall-Cellard is Full Professor of North American Studies at Bordeaux Montaigne University in France. She directs the Masters "Religions and Societies" and the Center for Canadian Studies. She is a specialist in contemporary North American religions https://www.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/fr/recherche/equipes_de_recherche/climas.html?param=184:81:brigal.
- You can also find dozens of newspaper articles and TV interviews featuring Eric Roux in his capacity of spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, but also as a religious freedom activist. He wrote several books and chapters in academic publications that have been reviewed and covered by medias, and just recently, as an example, he appears as one of the authors in the book "religious minorities in France" published by one of the biggest French publishing house FAYARD: See here
- Now, even if as said above, he would only be well-known as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, this in itself a source of notability which makes it worth to have an article. The significant coverage by independent sources is definitely sufficient.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- The WP:BASIC notability guideline for people states that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Westbrook has a one paragraph mention in a solid source. The CESNUR source is a book review from a person who is already a member of CESNUR's editorial board. I don't think this rises above the level of a WP:SELFPUBLISHED article, and so it really doesn't make a dent in terms of notability. Nblund talk 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Setting aside the strange issues above, being
"unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives..."
is not a clear claim to notability by itself. This uniqueness may be sort of interesting to someone, or not, but it's not a claim to notability. Passing mentions are insufficient. We are interested in reliable, independent sources with at least some depth. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC) - Keep - The point is not that the text says that he is unique. It is that he is known enough to have a page on him by a scholar in SAGE, and the text on him has definitely some depth. Then as regards CESNUR source, first of all, it is not a "book review". Whilst the book review also exists, I was talking about an article of 100 pages by Bernadette Rigal Cellard called "The Visible Expansion of the Church of Scientology and Its Actors"(https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/tjoc_3_1_2_rigal-cellard.pdf). If you read the article, you find at least three pages at different places describing the work of Eric Roux. I understand you have a problem with CESNUR. But then you must also take into consideration the credentials of the author. Bernadette Rigal Cellard is a Full Professor in a major French University. There, she chairs the Master "Religion and Society". She is well recognized by her pairs. In the article, there is definitely some depth about the way she describes Eric Roux, with many details that also show the notability. It makes it a reliable source. And as regards CESNUR, please let me respectfully notice that the two only persons that have selected the article for deletion and joined in support for deletion, are both engaged in a systematic attack on all articles linked with CESNUR, and the second has been called by the first to intervene... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grayfell#CESNUR) That is their right but does not help in terms of neutrality. You think it's not reliable, I think it is, due to the quality of the contributors and their credentials in the field they are touching upon. So we can't reach a consensus. In addition, when you are checking neutrality, you also have to use common sense. Just today, I checked on the web and I found this article published yesterday: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/hijab-controversy-roils-france-again/, in which Eric Roux is interviewed, not as a leader of the Church of Scientology, but as "President of the European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom and a well-known activist in the field of freedom of religion or belief" to comment on the French controversy on Muslim veil and the French government comments about it. New Europe is one of the biggest 10 magazines of the Brussels-EU area. That for example tells about notability. Moreover when you add it to the dozens of interviews, mentions, that you can find in national newspapers from various countries, as well as national TV chanels. I hope this helps.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately CESNUR has a negative reputation for making publications that contain bias and/or conflict of interest. Do to that reputation, it doesn't lend any credibility to a notability discussion at AFD. That's not the author's fault, but that is the reality of publishing in a disreputable journal per WP:Verifiability. Regardless, even if we were to include the journal article, there just isn't any references where the author himself is the main subject of the article. Being the public mouth piece of an organization, and occassionally getting quoted because of your PR role doesn't make you notable. There's also not enough citations/critical reviews of his work overall to satisfy WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: To generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Le luxembourgeois: I haven't "systematically attacked" anything, and if you would like to discuss questions about user conduct, you should take those concerns to my user page or to a relevant noticeboard. The interview in NewEurope is "supported content" which is paid for by the Faith and Freedom Summit Coalition, which is affiliated with Roux's own group. Content syndication efforts like this exist to make obscure people and events look important, they are little better than advertising, and they really don't carry any meaningful weight because they aren't independent. Nblund talk 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I think that keeping it is a question of common sense. Notability can also be regarded as notability in a specific field. If not, you would only have superstars in Wikipedia. WP:BASIC lists the criteria for notability. The basic criteria are "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". For these we have at least two published academic secondary source, one being discussed regarding its reliability (because it is published in the academic Journal of CESNUR, which some consider not reliable, and some reliable). I argue that the one of CESNUR is reliable, also because of the credentials of the author (see above). Is the coverage significant? I think yes, based on the General Notability Guidelines [1]: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The two sources meet this definition.
- Then you have additional criteria. There is no specific category for religious leaders, but I think we could process by analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges". "The following are presumed to be notable: • Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
- Based on this analogy, Eric Roux would meet both of the criteria. As regards his press coverage, you can easily find articles and National TV shows featuring him, whether in France, Belgium or even the US, during more than 10 years. He is the most visible and notable representative of the Church of Scientology in Europe.
- In addition, if you go on Google Scholars [2] you find his work but also works from academics mentioning him.
- I think that if you compare also to another religion, as Catholicism, you find articles on many of the Apostolic Nuncios. See here for France for example, one of them (the former one) [3] for which references are only coming from the Vatican. No secondary sources at all.
- For me, there is no doubt that the notability is established beyond question.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are only repeated yourself Le luxembourgeois. The RS just is simply not there for the subject to meet WP:GNG and the CESNUR source does not meet wikipedia's requirements at WP:Verifiability no matter how you try to spin it. His academic hits at Google Scholar are relatively very small (FYI that link you shared is not specific enough for all the hits to be related to Eric Roux, and looking through those sources which do cite them, many of the sources in the search are questionable publications). There's just nothing here that is convincing.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm basically giving arguments and reasonings. It's too easy to just say: "this is not reliable, period", "this is questionnable, period".But it's not an argument. You deny CESNUR as a source but can't argue with the author of the source, and I gave the reasons why this should be also taken into consideration. In addition, I gave other reasons for which I think notability is established. You mention WP:Verifiability, and actually the page gives you what is not a reliable source: "poor reputation checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." This is not the case of CESNUR (whether we like CESNUR or not), this is not the case of the author of the article cited and this is not the case of the article itself. Same for the article in SAGE. Not speaking about the mainstream medias featuring him. You say that his academy hits at Google Scholar are relatively small. Fine. But if you add academic secondary sources, mainstream national and international medias, the analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges", the hits on google scholars, the comparison I made with Catholic nuncios, etc., and a bit of common sense, I guess you can find out that there is notability here per WP:GNG. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Le luxembourgeois, I would argue that CESNUR does lack meaningful editorial oversite because of the conflict of interest problems with the publication as stated above. Constantly repeating yourself, talking in circles, and claiming things aren't problems when they are doesn't solve the issues. This is a very cut and dry case, no matter how much you are trying to deny that it isn't. The google scholar hits are either only tangential/passing mentions of quotes by Eric Roux, or are in questionable publications that lack meaningful editorial oversite. There are no sources where he is the main subject. There is no good RS here.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that I'm sorry to say, but it seems you don't read what I wrote. Example, as regards you saying "no source where he is the main subject", I already answered to this by quoting General Notability Guidelines [4]: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For the rest I let you re-read what I wrote and all the arguments that have not been answered.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have read what you have written and I have read the sources. I disagree with your assessment that they constitute significant coverage. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with that. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have read what you have written and I have read the sources. I disagree with your assessment that they constitute significant coverage. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that I'm sorry to say, but it seems you don't read what I wrote. Example, as regards you saying "no source where he is the main subject", I already answered to this by quoting General Notability Guidelines [4]: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For the rest I let you re-read what I wrote and all the arguments that have not been answered.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Le luxembourgeois, I would argue that CESNUR does lack meaningful editorial oversite because of the conflict of interest problems with the publication as stated above. Constantly repeating yourself, talking in circles, and claiming things aren't problems when they are doesn't solve the issues. This is a very cut and dry case, no matter how much you are trying to deny that it isn't. The google scholar hits are either only tangential/passing mentions of quotes by Eric Roux, or are in questionable publications that lack meaningful editorial oversite. There are no sources where he is the main subject. There is no good RS here.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm basically giving arguments and reasonings. It's too easy to just say: "this is not reliable, period", "this is questionnable, period".But it's not an argument. You deny CESNUR as a source but can't argue with the author of the source, and I gave the reasons why this should be also taken into consideration. In addition, I gave other reasons for which I think notability is established. You mention WP:Verifiability, and actually the page gives you what is not a reliable source: "poor reputation checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." This is not the case of CESNUR (whether we like CESNUR or not), this is not the case of the author of the article cited and this is not the case of the article itself. Same for the article in SAGE. Not speaking about the mainstream medias featuring him. You say that his academy hits at Google Scholar are relatively small. Fine. But if you add academic secondary sources, mainstream national and international medias, the analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges", the hits on google scholars, the comparison I made with Catholic nuncios, etc., and a bit of common sense, I guess you can find out that there is notability here per WP:GNG. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are only repeated yourself Le luxembourgeois. The RS just is simply not there for the subject to meet WP:GNG and the CESNUR source does not meet wikipedia's requirements at WP:Verifiability no matter how you try to spin it. His academic hits at Google Scholar are relatively very small (FYI that link you shared is not specific enough for all the hits to be related to Eric Roux, and looking through those sources which do cite them, many of the sources in the search are questionable publications). There's just nothing here that is convincing.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to delete; concern that the RS quoted does no meet GNG (and particularly CESNUR); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Leaning to delete; concern that the RS quoted does no meet GNG (and particularly CESNUR); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Per 4meter4, fails WP:SIGCOV, there's just not enough sourcing to do justice to a bio. Additionally, CESNUR is usually not a RS. Feoffer (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Other evidences of notability and some remarks on CESNUR:
- • CESNUR has an editorial board which is composed of renowned scholars. Even if some of them are deemed "controversial", they are not so in the academic world. Even Massimo Introvigne is recognized as one of the best scholars in the field of new religions. He has been occupying the function of Representative of the OSCE on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, was appointed chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. Antoine Faivre is one of most renowned scholar on esoterism in France. Etc.
- • Sources include an article in SAGE journal, which has not been contested at all (even if removed from the article with no reason) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404.
- • Other example, one academic source in the website of the Lund University: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8875480&fileOId=8875481, one page on Eric Roux.
- • Mainstream Media coverage: In France, dozens of articles, for example: https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Europe/L-Eglise-scientologie-rehabilitee-justice-belge-2016-04-28-1200756546. In Belgium, dozens of articles, TV shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6iGSM9Pu64, on the official account of the French Parliament (2 hours interview): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUOIl3PMFA, on M6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16fOe-jji04, in Belgium on the RTBF: https://www.rtbf.be/tv/article/detail_devoir-d-enquete-sur-l-eglise-de-scientologie?id=9106539, etc., you can find dozens of others by yourself. I know these medias are not making him the subject of their report per se, but invite him as an official of the CoS, but this shows his notability, as I said above, he is the most well-known and notable Church of Scientology's official in Europe. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
— Duplicate vote: Le luxembourgeois (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
- Comment. SAGE is not a journal but a publishing company that produces a large body of different academic publications. For those wanting to review the article Le luxembourgeois is referring to see: "The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century" from the journal Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses, 2018, Vol. 47(3) 373–395. I will be providing my own analysis shortly.4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I have struck my delete vote above. The article from Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses is a better reference (I have access through my university library). It's author is a leading researcher on Scientology with a prominent book publication on the religion by Oxford University Press. Roux is the center of a case study in the article. That in conjunction with the other media sources just provided by Le luxembourgeois just barely squeaks by WP:SIGCOV. I was initially inclined to change to weak delete but in reality that opinion would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT out of my own bias. The coverage does in the end meet the standard of GNG. @Le luxembourgeois: I strongly urge you to strike your double vote and not repeat yourself in AFDs. Such behavior often causes other reviewers to vote against you rather than for you because it is considered bad etiquette. It only weakens your argument. You may add new evidence to discussions with the word "comment". The added evidence did persuade me to change my vote. This is the best way to conduct yourself in AFDs. Let the evidence speak for itself.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice @4meter4:. I had not realized it would be a double vote. I changed it to "comment" and made some changes.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, per 4meter4. I don't seem to have access to the article ("The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century"), but being the centre of a case study in combination with the other mentions makes me think this is a notable subject. /Julle (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before action is taken
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist before action is taken
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- 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.