Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Marc Moret

: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  06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[:Jean-Marc Moret]]=

:{{la|Jean-Marc_Moret}} - (View AfD)(View log)

I nominate this article for deletion due to poor notability of this scholar. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROF WP:PROF].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dybabdulwadud (talk • contribs) 2011/03/26 00:31:16

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Google Scholar does not verify the claims in the article; his so-called masterwork, "considered to be an important publication on South Italian vase painting," has been cited only 29 times, and nothing else turns up at all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Oedipe, la Sphinx et les Thébains has been cited 46 times. According to Oliver Taplin, Moret's account of the internal language of vase painting in L'Ilioupersis dans la céramique italiote, "has become the dominant orthodoxy in Francophone scholarship..." [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ectEGUhT8jUC&pg=PA23&dq=%22Jean-Marc+Moret%22&hl=en&ei=wAKuTey4FYfWsgbKqpTXDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%22Jean-Marc%20Moret%22&f=false] So, meets WP:ACADEMIC.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough there, I will change my mind if more (good) refs turn up. Szzuk (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep per Ethico. Seems clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (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.