Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Renault
In today's world, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Renault is a topic of great interest and relevance. For a long time, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Renault has captured the attention of people of all ages and social classes, generating debates, research and in-depth analysis in different areas. Whether due to its impact on society, its influence on popular culture, its importance in history, or any other reason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Renault has managed to position itself as a fundamental topic in current discourse. In this article, we will explore different aspects related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Renault, analyzing its impact, implications and relevance today.
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Eric Renault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recently AfC accepted BLP of an economics professor. Original page was by COI author, and contained masses of puffery. After removing most (but not all) of the bloat I see no real evidence of notability. Scotus h-factor is 29 with ~4k cites, too low for WP:NPROF. I am not convinced by the awards, for instance that a "Journal of Econometrics Fellow" is senior enough to count. I note that many of the sources are marked as "inactive", i.e. the DOI is wrong or similar, suggesting LLM and AI hallucinations. (Earlier versions show definite LLM indications in Quillbot.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and England. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I based my acceptance on a named professorship, and on an elected fellowship. I am content whether this is deleted or kept - either wil improve Wikipedia. I shall remain neutral. It was full of overblown material and greatly in need of serious cullig of extraneous puffery. I can see why Ldm1954 has edited it so severely already and why they considered it was worth nominating for edeletion. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 23:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I just checked some of the DOI's which exist. I did not check all, just 5. Of these 3 are wrong, clear AI hallucinations. In retrospect I probably should have done a G15 CSD, I wont change it now. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Draftify as an alternative to WP:TNT. He does clearly pass WP:PROF through the named professorship at Brown (#C5, which can be verified but not from the 404 sources in the article) and also the one at UNC if that can be independently verified, and through heavily cited publications (#C1, quadruple-digit citation counts for "Stochastic volatility", "Indirect inference", and "Long memory in continuous‐time stochastic volatility models", and many more with triple-digit counts), at least. But the AI stink here needs a lot of effort to wash off. In the meantime it should not be in article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Draftify since WP:PROF is met but the existing text does not belong in article space, not by a long shot. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)