Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Piette

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Albert Piette}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Albert Piette}})

The page is pretty much a list of the man's works with no other analysis of the subject matter. There's no section on his personal life, views, etc. Would be OK revoking this RFD if these concerns were addressed but with the article as is, I don't know if this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Religion. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to easily pass WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I disagree with the idea that "analysis of the subject matter" requires us to have sections on his personal life or views. For an article about an influential academic/author, a list of notable works and an explanation of their contribution to their field of scholarship is exactly what an article should contain. In terms of notability, I found at least two journal articles directly addressing his body of work: [https://doi.org/10.1177/00084298241236946 Albert Piette and lived (non-)religion: Conceptual and methodological considerations] and [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43645058 The Minor Mode: Albert Piette and the Reshaping of Anthropology]. I expect that there is much more to be found in French. An extremely cursory search also turned up a large number of reviews of his books [https://arpi.unipi.it/handle/11568/994566] [https://journals.openedition.org/lectures/921] [https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/as/2024-v48-n3-as09971/1117446ar/abstract/] [https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/as/2016-v40-n3-as02898/1038655ar.pdf] [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1469-8676.12096_19] [https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=917632] [https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393115608822] [https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/etho.12129], giving him a pass of NAUTHOR criteria 3. MCE89 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Understood. But that begs the question, why were those sources not added in the first place? Surely the person who created the article should have done their research and added them if they're as reliable as you say they are. Or perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I mean, the article was created in 2009. The standards for article quality and for notability were very different back then, and none of the sources I linked above had even been written yet at that point. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "perhaps there's a good reason why they weren't there". Are you suggesting that I'm somehow misrepresenting the sources? MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::No I am not. And the sources not existing at the time is a good reason for them not to have been cited in the article, thanks for bringing that up! Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Book reviews in the comment above are enough to pass AUTHOR and likely scholarly/academic notability. This person is indexed in 8 national libraries, also hinting at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep and to the nom, WP:SOFIXIT (or at least conduct a good WP:BEFORE) prior to attempting to delete an article that clearly plausibly asserts notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Notability as an academic is low, h-index is low [https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/A.-Piette/103781239]. Number of books doesn't qualify for being a monumental amount of work. Not widely cited by peers. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see h-index as a particularly useful metric in this case, particularly for a field like anthropology, and it's certainly not the only standard for judging WP:NPROF. The fact that there are multiple full papers analysing Piette's body of work strikes me as much stronger evidence that {{tq|the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline}} than a single citation. His concept of "existential anthopology" in particular seems to be widely cited in the field, and I've also found a bunch more papers and book chapters dedicated to analysing his work: [https://journals.openedition.org/theoremes/503] [https://www.religiologiques.uqam.ca/no43/43_113-129_Beaman.pdf] [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00084298231224814] [https://journals.openedition.org/pa/603] [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315236292-14/minimalist-sociology-religion-james-beckford] [https://shs.cairn.info/journal-le-philosophoire-2015-2-page-177?lang=en] [https://journals.openedition.org/pa/583]. I also found an [https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/sira/53/4 entire 2024 issue] of the journal Studies in Religion dedicated to "The Enduring Value of Albert Piette’s La religion de près", and [https://journals.openedition.org/theoremes/507 a 2013 issue] of the journal Theoremes dedicated to his work "Albert Piette, à propos de l'origine de la croyance".
• :Whether or not the number of books he has written is "monumental" is also not the correct standard to apply for WP:NAUTHOR. We do not judge an author's notability based on the number of books they have written, but on whether that person has created a {{tq|significant or well-known work or collective body of work}} that has been {{tq|the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews}}. In this case, the reviews of his books go way past the threshold for NAUTHOR. Here are some more reviews that I found of his books: [https://journals.openedition.org/lectures/43923] [https://journals.openedition.org/theoremes/156] [https://journals.openedition.org/theoremes/145] [https://journals.openedition.org/lectures/968] [https://journals.openedition.org/assr/77153] [https://journals.openedition.org/assr/3594] [https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_3EE22CFFFB78.P001/REF.pdf] [https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/162700/1/EspacesTempsBdeVillers.pdf] [https://journals.openedition.org/lectures/14021] [https://www.persee.fr/doc/polix_0295-2319_2000_num_13_52_1130] [https://journals.openedition.org/lectures/297] [https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393115608822] [https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/as/2016-v40-n3-as02898/1038655ar/abstract/] [https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/fr/2006-v18-n2-fr05638/1073238ar/abstract/] [https://journals.openedition.org/rsa/440] [https://www.persee.fr/doc/raipr_0033-9075_1997_num_124_1_3447_t1_0143_0000_2] [https://journals.openedition.org/assr/22513] [https://journals.openedition.org/theoremes/497] [https://www.persee.fr/doc/genes_1155-3219_1997_num_27_1_1755_t1_0165_0000_3] [https://www.persee.fr/doc/ether_0014-2239_1995_num_70_3_4532_t1_0470_0000_2] [https://journals.openedition.org/assr/21644] [https://journals.openedition.org/assr/22077] [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26375492] [https://www.jstor.org/stable/45158775] [https://journals.openedition.org/rsa/868] [https://philpapers.org/rec/COHCEP] [https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9655.12939] [https://libra.unine.ch/entities/publication/b47a005b-e596-43f7-bb47-ecfc351cf8a5/details] MCE89 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Over 30 reviews of his books just on JSTOR. Each is an independent and in-depth source about his work. Easy pass of WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.