Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 16

16 February 2011

CloudSafe

CloudSafe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not fully understand how notability criteria at WP:CORP affects the entry, since most companies in Comparison_of_file_hosting_services. Considering and "Deletion of articles" reasoning for consistency at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I ask politely to restore the page from User:Roberto_valerio/CloudSafe to common space. Direct admin contact is not possible right now since the page was marked protected. Roberto valerio (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Roberto, you need to be aware of both WP:CORP and WP:N. Without reasonable independent third party sources, it is very unlikely this article will be moved to main space. I'd have to imagine the company has seen some news coverage, either in local press or trade press. If you can find such articles (be they on-line or not) that provide significant coverage of the company, then we'll likely end up with an article here. Please feel free to ask me, or pretty much anyone else who hangs out here, for guidance or clarification. Hobit (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• We need at least some indication of importance: market share is one possibly notable aspect, business awards are another, product reviews are a third. But not just what's in the article in the cache, a statement that the company exists. In any of these cases, it has to be shown by third party sources. If you can show these sorts of things, and have suitable reliable sources, then try to write an article. But not otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reject recreation based on current draft. I echo DGG's recommendations — please show notability with third-party verification. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• I found a few online repositories to the first coverage in print publications: "Hakin9" (print, german), "t3n" (print, german), "PC World" (print, polish). Then some blog coverage at AppStorm, Online Backup Dir, Online Tech Tips . Please give me advice what else is necessary to equal the companies on Comparison_of_file_hosting_services. Regards, Roberto valerio (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

going down the list, 1. exactly where in Hackin9 is CloudSafe mentioned? 2. is merely a statement that it exists, & is not substantial coverage. Furthermore it lists it as a startup, and startups usually need some time to become notable 3. is a PR release from the company, not an independent source. 4. This one is a full review. Blogs are not usually RSs, but in computers some can be, and this seems to be by a staff reviewer. If we can recognize this blog as a good authority this would be half-way there, but I'm not familiar with it. 5. is a mere directory listing 6. is an elementary comparison of 3 services, listing cloudsafe along with 2 very notable services. Its a fairly well known how-to site. Personally, I think 4 & 6 make enough. , though I'm sure someone will challenge it if at least one such review isn't from an actual edited computer magazine or the like. Any info on market share, btw? DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for having another look at the request. To have at least one article from a computer magazine I uploaded the article from Hakin9 to [Scribd]. Market share projections are quite difficult since file hosting is a large space with dozens of services. Assumption: Based on registered users so far we should be in the Top 20 in Europe. Regards, Roberto valerio (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• undelete/allow recreation I think the Hackin9 interview about the company combined with the detailed appstorm review and the other sources above are enough to A) meet WP:N and B) write an article around. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for helping me out. Still, a couple of hours later the article is deleted again (User:Lifebaka). Sorry, but I do not know how to deal with this issue anymore, I am missing transparency and reliability in the process. Could anyone step in and give clear advice? Best, Roberto valerio (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Once this DRV ends (they usually run a week) an admin will make the call about exactly what to do. Why one admin restored and another moved it back to userspace I'm unclear. But just wait a bit and some kind of resolution will be had. On the up side, things _are_ pretty transparent. That is, this is the entire discussion. The restore and move were weird and hopefully will have an explanation soon. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I moved it back because the offered draft was not, at the time, going to stick around in mainspace. I decided that moving it back to userspace was preferable to letting it get deleted. There is nothing wrong with recreation, in the abstract, but this particular draft needs more work. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• I am giving up. Some admins delete, some undelete then some delete again. Seriously, it's nice to have an open discussion. But it is a waste of time to have to argue about the same arguments over and over again. I tried my best and failed, because there is no consensus. Aanyway, thanks to the good & helpful admins here on this discusson. Roberto valerio (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Lorenzo Iorio

Lorenzo Iorio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I must state in advance that I am not acquainted with all the subtleties and policies of Wikipedia concerning similar issues.

I tried to resolve the issue of the recreation of the page about Iorio with the administrator who originally deleted this page, but without success. In my opinion, the substantial problems with this page were: 1) there was a sockpuppetry issue during the previous discussion. After I asked for a recreation, the administrator asked me if I was another sockpuppet, which is not the case. 2) It seems that Iorio has a current lingering conflict of interest with another Italian scientist active in the same field; the anonymity of editors and administrators should have made the rest.

One of the critical issues during the previous deletion discussion was that the h-index of Iorio, along with his publication record, compared to that of other researchers, was not high enough. Now, the situation is different since, as it turns out from the NASA ADS database, his h-index, number of citations, etc. are of the same level of, or even larger than, those of other researchers active in similar fields, whose dedicated articles are present in Wikipedia.

Please consider that, in the present case, it is fully meaningful to compare articles pertaining researchers working in the about same field.

Another critical issue was that the deleted page was substantially a sort of promotional CV online. The page I have in mind would be substantially different, much shorter. In practice, I would take as examples the existing articles about other researchers working in about the same field. In addition, I would include just a link to the Iorio's list of publications http://digilander.libero.it/lorri/list_of_publications.htm, his personal website http://digilander.libero.it/lorri/homepage_of_lorenzo_iorio.htm. I would also add the links concerning the several international press releases dealing with some works of him. I would also add the links to some of the distinctions received by Iorio like top cited awards by Elsevier, and so on. Such links are new, and were not available during the previous deleting discussion.

Although it may not be formally considered as a valid argument from the point of view of Wikipedia policy, I must notice that the presence of articles dedicated to other researchers not displaying the same public coverage (few or no press releases at all, no top cited awards, no most viewed articles, and so on) and with similar or smaller h-indexes, together with the absence of a similar article dedicated to Iorio, would constitute an objective and substantial lack of fairness and justice. I could make several examples. Please, notice that during the deletion discussion some of the partecipants contrary to keeping the Iorio's page actually made explicit comparisons with other articles about different researchers.

Finally, I notice that the second speedy deletion was due to a copyright problem with another site. I would easily resolve it by writing an entirely new text. Michoball (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: If you think you can make a better article which demonstrates that he meets the notability standard of WP:PROF, the best thing to do would be to make a draft in your user space at User talk:Michoball/Lorenzo Lorio, which could be considered here. Read WP:YFA before you start: I will put some useful links on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: The WP:PROF page starts by noticing that the issue of notability is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". It is exactly the common sense that should be applied when I invoke meaningful comparisons with existing articles to other comparable scientists in the same field explicitly exhibiting less public coverage and comparable or smaller bibliometric indexes.

Then, the WP:PROF page continues by stating that a notable person must be, among other things, "subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources." This is just the case for L. Iorio, as shown by the various links to international and independent magazines dealing with some works of him, by the various " Top 25 Hottest Articles " and " Most viewed articles " classifications of the various academic journals published by Elsevier, Kluwer, Springer showing the ranking gained by some of his papers, and by two New Astronomy Top Cited Author awards from Elsevier.

In the WP:PROF page we read: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable." Among the following criteria there are:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It is the case for L. Iorio, since the NASA ADS database, which is certainly a well renown and trustable independent reliable source, shows that his various bibliometric indexes, among which the h-index is as large as 20 (after just 10 years of scientific activity...), are objectively high and comparable to, or often higher than, those of other scientists having their articles in Wikipedia. L. Iorio is also author of an invited review article on a well estabilished academic peer-reviewed jorunal. Moreover, as I would demonstrate, L. Iorio was appointed by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for submitting nominations for the Crafoord Prize, which is the most prestigious prize in the field of geosciences.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. It is the case of L. Iorio, as I would demonstrate. He did not receive the Nobel prize. But, please notice also that the WP:PROF page specifies: "Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1". Actually, as I can demonstrate, L. Iorio received a prize from the Italian Physical Society, and from another international astronomical institution.
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. It is the case of L. Iorio, Elected Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, as it can be shown.
4. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. Indeed, L. Iorio is associated editor of an academic journal published by Bentham Science Publishers

Thus, we have here more than one of the aforementioned criteria fulfilled.

Interested editors and administrators may want to check my claims by directly looking at L. Iorio website which collects the information I am conveying here in a public, objective and verifiable way. Indeed, they will find scanned copies of most of the original documents. Other suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Michoball (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rewrite a non-infringing version in user space, and if it looks passable, anyone can send to AfD -- for a better discussion than the 09. This was most recently deleted because of being a copy of a web site. Otherwise, I think it probably does meet WP:PROF. I don't want to recap the 2009 AfD in detail, but I do not see that there was a clear consensus to delete, nor that the discussion was adequate in discussing the extent to which the person met the WP:PROF criteria. I think the articles and citations are enough to demonstrate the person as having made an impact, going by our usual standards. The Fellowship is indeed relevant--the objection was made at the AfD that he was just a member, not a fellow. If he can be shown to be a fellow, this is an important contributing factor, though not enough by itself. But it's two years later, and perhaps things are clearer now. But I point out that editor in the sense of WP:PROF is always interpreted as editor-in-chief, not associated editor or member of an editorial board, and I would not consider any Bentham Open journal truly a major journal in any field--not a single one of them is in JCR. (Some of Betham's review journals in Pharmacology are, but they're not part of Bentham Open). (I also point out that a better discussion is more likely to be had if the case is stated without the degree of overemphasis that was present there, and for that matter here.) DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Ok, dear friends. I rewrote it according to your guidelines at User talk:Michoball/Lorenzo Lorio. Comments, suggestions and criticisms are welcome. Thanks Michoball (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about this "rewrite".

1. Much of it is original research, based on analysis of papers he has written. Please remove all sources except the secondary ones that actually discuss him.
2. Some of the biographical information is unsourced. Please provide reliable sourcing or remove it.
3. His "Bibliometrics" are sourced to this website: http://digilander.libero.it/lorri/bibliometrics.htm , which is Iorio's own personal website. It claims, for example, that his h-index is 20, g-index is 25, and number of citations is 633, but http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/5500192 gives an h-index of 6, g-index of 9, and number of citations as 180. Please explain this discrepancy, and please provide reliable secondary sourcing for these numbers.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please, note the following.

1. Please, Jay, be more specific about the alleged original research which I would have included. Do you refer to the invited chapters by him? Do you refer to the invited review by him? I could, perhpas, remove them, especially the chapters, but, on the other hand, they are all means contributing to support his notability. Consider, for example, the invited review. It is a clear sign of notability. But, now, should I remove the citation to it? So, somebody else will say that I wrote an unsourced reference...The same for the EGU talk, which also holds as media coverage: should I remove the citation to it? Moreover, Jay, I have included a complete list of secondary sources, press releases by international magazines and newspapers, which deal with Iorio's works. Very few other existing articles about scientists active in the same field can display them. This is a fact, not an opinion.
2. Please, explain me exactly: what bibliographical information is unsourced? Must I find somewhere on the Internet Iorio's driving license and/or his Identity Card displaying his address and his nationality? Must I find somewhere on the Internet that he actually has a degree in Physics? Ok, I've found this http://miur.academia.edu/LorenzoIorio/Teaching/15155/PhD_certification. Do you refer to the fact that I wrote that his first article in gravitational physics dates back to 2001? If so, it is easy to check in the included list of publications.
3. Sorry, Jay, but your remark about his bibliometrics is totally absurd, as anyone can notice. As I stated, and as it is stated in the Iorio's bibliometric page, the source of such numbers is the NASA ADS database which, permit me, Jay, is certainly much more complete, reliable and accurate than yours (just to make an example, Jay, please note the field of activity that your site attributes to Iorio...Artificial intelligence! Notice also the ridicolous lack of lots of published papers, not to say about their citations..It is so since, perhaps, it is based on Bing? Who knows) and, in this case, also of other ones like, e.g., Google Scholar, ISI Web of knowledge, Scopus whose coverage is less complete. It is well known that different databases have different coverages. Clearly, one has to consider the database yielding the largest h-index: it is evidently more complete than others in that specific case/field. For example, Google Scholar, for reasons unclear to me, attributes very few citations to a work by Iorio and Ruggiero on the Hořava-Lifshitz gravity which, instaed, has 37 citations on NASA ADS. Take the time to carefully check NASA ADS, please. Look at the definitions of h-index and g-index, go to the NASA ADS database, and check yourself by doing the required math (you will not find there a button for the h-index and the other bibliometric indexes: you must do the calculation by hand). I cannot explain here how to make bibliographic researches with NASA ADS. Anyway, you may want to carefully read http://nebulium.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/the-hirsch-index-part-1/

and make the necessary operations. Please note that, actually, how NASA ADS works is a bit strange: sometimes in a day some citations disappear, then they re-appear, and so on (mirroring issues? Regular mantainance? Bugs? Who knows). For example, right now it returned me 626 citations (self-citations excluded): I'm sure that tomorrow they will be again 633... However, the h-index and the g-index computation are not affected. Anyay, thank you. Nothing personal. We are all here to do our best, of course. Michoball (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, Jay. I just removed the citations to his invited chapters. Michoball (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comments.

1. All articles about scientists ought to talk about their research. It's their research that has made them notable, not their biographical details, which are just background. Otherwise, it would be like writing an article on an author without mentioning what they wrote, on a musician without mentioning their music. Summarizing briefly some of the main peer-reviewed work is highly appropriate. Care needs to be taken to refer to the most important work, as judged by citations. It would very much help to have a secondary source, preferably from a review journal of high reputation, to use for a quotation about it's importance--it takes a while to find a good quotation, but we should try to do this more.
2. Routine bio information can be & almost invariably is in the case of academic taken from a person's official cv or similar sources. (If one should happen to find it elsewhere it was almost certainly just copied from that cv--even in a published obituary.) It's a good idea, though to have outside citations for awards and the like.
3. Invited papers are selected on the grounds of expected interest. They are rarely peer-reviewed. Papers at some scientific meetings are, but it's the exception & they can only be included as of peer-reviewed work if this is known. In the sciences, chapters in books are usually a rather minor form of publication. But all of this is important for us to evaluate only where such papers or chapters are the bulk of the work and there is little in peer-reviewed journals. That's not the case here--there is quite a lot in peer-reviewed journals.
4. h-index is important, but what I would like to see is the citations to the most cited per-reviewed papers from other peer-reviewed papers, something which can be done adequately on Scopus or Web of Science, but not google scholar. the GS counts are useful if there is nothing else, as is the cases in some subjects, but they normally run about twice to Scopus or WoS counts and need to be evaluated accordingly. ADS is a wonderfully complete service, but includes unpublished work. Using h or g indexes is shorthand. I personally really really dislike them, because it loses most of the information, but giving them has become standard.
5. I repeated the count for Scopus just now. 116 papers listed. Highest counts, 30, 26, 25, 22, 21 h=13 (meaning 13 papers cited 13 times or more) There are 66 papers with 2 citations or fewer. This sort of distribution shows a great many papers, with few of them making a major quantitative impact of the mainstream of physics, and none having great influence This is usually an indication that the work is off is a special area of its own, that this work is considered somewhat off the mainstream--but not considered really on the borderline of credibility, for in that case the counts would be much lower.
6. What also counts--and counts very heavily--is where the papers have been published. This is unfortunately for accurate analysis to some extent a matter of reputation, & can be only very poorly approximated by the impact factor of the journal--some bureaucratic agencies us that criteria but it's widely deprecated. I & others have frequently used in an AfD whether any of the papers have been in Physical Review or , even better, Physical Review Letters, as a helpful indication. (none of his have, & about half are in journals people would call good, and half in those they would probably call not so good) This too is tyoical of someone whose work is somewhat out of the mainstream but not negligible.
7. We need to be careful on the one hand not to let in afrticles about unimportant pseudo-scientistific cranks, but on the other, not to include only the mainstream.

I therefore conclude that he qualifies for an article: the work is not yet generally accepted as major, but it has had an impact.

I'd suggest

1. expanding the description of the research about two-fold
2. adding the counts to the most cited papers.
3. removing the bold face. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments to DGG.

Dear DGG, thank you for your remarks. I implemented all your suggestions, now. However, permit me to let you know the following. About his invited review, I do not know what happens in other fields, but in the present one the invited reviews are, actually, all peer-reviewed, in particular this one in Astrophysics and Space Science. About the bibliometric indexes, I've found a host of other indexes. Let me study them. I may add them later. About your research in Scopus-I thank you for it-, actually it clearly demonstrates all its inadequacy. Indeed, Iorio has published (including the papers at press) 137 works, not 116. Also the citation counts by Scopus is quite wrong since his most cited papers have 53, 37, 36 citations, and so on (see NASA ADS, but not only it), certainly not 30, 26, 25, 22, 21. About the journals, please note that he published lot of papers in journals like Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Journal of High Energy Physics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, The Astronomical Journal which have impact factors which are larger than, or almost equal to, those of the journals considered by you. Finally, I would not agree with you about making a too strict distinction among peer-reviewed citations and non-peer-reviewed citations. Actually, I do not see how it could be judged of minor importance, from the point of view of the impact, a citation in a talk or in a proceeding by colleagues in the same field. Moreover, note also that NASA ADS has its own severe scrutiny about the citing records to be submitted to its database: if you try to submit some records to it, it may happen that they refute it because it does not pass their quality control. Moreover, it often happens that works which are still unpublished at a given epoch, will be published later. Thank you again. Michoball (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• A question to the admins: inclusion in biographical databases of institutions. Would it be helpful to add also the fact that several papers of him are enlisted in the biographical databases of several international institutions like the International Astronomical Union, NASA, and so on? Thanks. Michoball (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to some of the various issues still in the article:

1. The first sentence still contains unsourced biographical details, specific that he was born in 1971 and lives in Bari, Italy.
2. The next paragraph is pure original research, based entirely on primary sources. If he's notable, reliable secondary sources will have described his interests.
3. The claim "According to the NASA ADS database, the main bibliometric data[5] of L. Iorio are as follows: h-index = 20. g-index = 25. m-quotient[6] = 2." is not cited to the NASA ADS database, but to Iorio's personal website. These claims can only be included if they come from reliable, secondary sources. Iorio's website cannot be used as a source for these claims.
4. The claims "At present, his most cited article has 53 citations[7]" is pure original research. This claim can only be included if it is explicitly made in a reliable, secondary source.

These serious issues have still not been properly dealt with. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to Jay.

Please, other admins: read since there is a serious issue with such an admin and her/his requests.

1. Has you read what DGG wrote? How would you demonstrate that Iorio was born in 1971 and that he lives in Bari?
2. As you can see, I implemented the suggestions by DGG who asked me to double the part concerning the research activity.
3. This statement is unbelievable!! Have you read what I wrote to you in the previous reply? Do you realize that those bibliometric information can be retrieved from NASA ADS or not? Do you know what is NASA ADS? Why don't you read what I write?
4. I implemented one of the suggestions of DGG, who explicitly asked me to insert that information. What does it mean that "it is pure original research"? Have you looked at the link I inserted or not? It comes from NASA ADS! Michoball (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michoball

1. Yes, I read what he wrote. You need to have a reliable source for everything you write in a WP:BLP article. If you don't have one, don't include the claim.
2. The paragraph is pure original research, based entirely on primary sources. If he's notable, reliable secondary sources will have described his interests.
3. Yes, I read what you wrote. But you haven't cited the NASA ADS database, nor can you do so. These claims can only be included if they come from reliable, secondary sources. Iorio's website cannot be used as a source for these claims.
4. DGG didn't ask you to do that; please re-read what he said, which was different. In addition, it wasn't very good advice, since the counts would only be valid as of February 18, 2011. That kind of ephemeral information isn't particularly helpful. Regardless, you haven't done what DGG asked you to do.

I'm sorry you are finding this process difficult, but WP:BLP rules are very strict, and often difficult for the non-experienced to understand; this is compounded by the fact that the Wikipedia community decided fairly recently that Iorio is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to Jay

This is exactly what DGG asked me: "

1. expanding the description of the research about two-fold
2. adding the counts to the most cited papers." I already included a plenty of reliable secondary sources documenting what Iorio did. However, I added the date and place of birth of Iorio and his address. I have removed the link to the bibliometric page of the Iorio's website, and I removed the citation count to that Iorio's paper.

Admins, what must I do when there are conflicting suggestions by different admins? Thanks.Michoball (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Date and place of birth, and address removed

Perhaps, it is unnecessary to state those informations Michoball (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michoball,

1. DGG did suggest that, but what you produced pure original research, based entirely on primary sources. If Iorio is notable, then reliable secondary sources will have described his interests.
2. DGG also did suggest that, which is not the same as what you did: you made a claim that a particular paper is the most cited one. Please review WP:NOR. Also, as I pointed out, it wasn't really good advice anyway, since the counts would only be valid as of February 18, 2011.

Please keep in mind that when you use a paper of Iorio to generate information about Iorio himself, you are using it as a primary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to Jay.

As you can notice, I now removed the issue of the most cited paper. I also removed his place of birth and date, and address, although I found sources for that. Michoball (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the large OR paragraph describing his work, you have still left in the sentence "According to the NASA ADS database, the main bibliometric data of L. Iorio are as follows: h-index = 20. g-index = 25." Please provide a link to the reliable secondary source that states exactly that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to Jay

Jay, that paragraph requested by DGG refers just to those works by him covered by the awards received, magazine and newspaper articles listed below. Moreover, why should I remove the sentence about his bibliometric information, if I included NASA ADS as secondary, relaible source? The issue of h-index was important in the past deletion dicussion, it is explicitly included in the WP:PROF, and, now, I cannot proof it?? You will never find any webiste or database which will display those information! You must get them by making an action like clicking on a button "calculate the h-index", or you have to do the math from the data provided by the databases! Otherwise, why did you displayed me that ridicolous database in which Iorio was listed as a scientist working in another field? Or, do you mean that, "ok, we know that his bibliometric indexes are OK, but you must not display them"? You entered in a loop: where do you think that another putative website would retrieve the bibliometric indexes from? Of course, from some databases by clicking on their magic button, or by doing the math! Recall that WP:PROF requires the use of common sense first of all! Michoball (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "that paragraph", if you want to prove you're not doing original research, then quote those sources supporting the claims made in that paragraph. And what I mean is everything in a biography of a living person must be sourced to reliable secondary sources that explicitly support the claims they cite. I understand that Wikipedia's content rules can be frustrating to those unfamiliar with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Allow creation and re-list at AfD for a full debate, is my opinion after having read all the above, and mainly based on DGG's analysis. The last AfD was marred by more than a dozen sockpuppets, but we may hope that his supporters have learned that socking will be detected and is not helpful. Before that, my advice would be that the WP:Verifiability of the referencing should be improved (Michoball, read that policy carefully); I have not had time to do much checking but, for instance, ref.9 against "m-quotient" goes to a footnote which links only to the WP article Gravitation, and ref.11, the claim of a prize from the Italian Physical Society, is cited to their Wikipedia article, which says nothing about it. The article should concentrate more on genuine claims to distinction, such as comments on his work by others, and avoid seeming to claim too much - being "elected to a Fellowship" of the Royal Astronomical Society, for instance, merely means that you have paid a subscription - "Fellowship... is open to any person over the age of 18 whose application is acceptable to the Society", and to be impressed by the invitation to nominate candidates for the Crafoord Prize, I would need to know to how large a mailing list that invitation was sent. If we can agree to allow creation and relist at AfD, perhaps detailed criticism and advice can go on elsewhere. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comments Jayjg, you are setting unreasonable conditions. We have for years always accepted h & g indexes in articles and in arguments because anyone with access to the databases (& ADS is a free database) can verify them. It is done by counting, and it's explicit in WP:OR that counting and addition are not OR. (and the methodology is open--its not like taking a value that google found by some arcane method they won't release to the public). We have always explicitly accepted information from a CV and similar primary sources as RS for the uncontested uncontroversial facts of a biography--it's clear in the RS guidelines (in my 4 years here, there was one CV with a doctorate that looked dubious; it was challenged, and I did a few hours of research and found I could not verify it after checking every possible source, and we deleted the article.) The RS for the publication of papers is their inclusion in a responsible database., and Scopus as well as ADS are among them. Yes, there's an error rate of a few percent in the details for any particular paper, but the journals themselves could be checked if in doubt. All sources without exception have errors. We have reasonable standards of accuracy in our discussions--we after all are not trying for the Truth, and saying someone is or is not notable here is not definitive evidence of their True Importance in the Universe, whatever that may mean. If one really wants to be persnickety, the fact that several of his papers are discussed in several sources , if only to express a lack of conviction in this theories, meets the GNG. (The reason we don't use that as a criterion is that for scientists that would be wildly inclusive, but it none the less is technically true.) A challenge to information in an article that appears to have sources must be based on something reasonable. To the best of my knowledge we could find at least one fact in every bio article here for which someone could make some sort of an argument about the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • DGG, the only "conditions" I'm setting are WP:NOR and WP:RS. We can obviously cite self-published material for uncontroversial claims, such as a place of birth - my objection there was that the material was included with no citation. However, calculating something like an h or g index is clearly not the kind of simple calculation or conversion allowed by WP:CALC. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comments to Jay, JohnCD and DGG

I rewrote the paragraph requested by DGG about the scientific activity in a (hopefully) better way since, now, all statements are backed by press releases and newspaper articles. I also added an invitation letter to IAU GENERAL ASSEMBLY and, especially, lots of international institutions listing his papers in their institutional bibliographic repositories. Dear JohnCD, permit me to let you know that, actually, being an Elected Felllow of the RAS does not merely mean that you have just to pay a quote. Instead, you must be introduced by another renown scientist who has to send a presentation letter. You may check yourself by going to RAS website and/or directly sending an inquiry to them. Moreover, about the Crafoord Prize I am truly skeptical about your remark. Do you really think that almost everyone may receive an invitation to submit nominations to the equivalent of the Nobel prize in geophysics..? Moreover, JohnCD, please be clear about the issue of the m-quotient: I simply put a footnote to explain that Iorio started publishing in gravitation 10 years ago, so that his m-quotient is (h=20)/10 = 2. Since I created an article to the m-quotient, I think that there is no need to insert a formal citation to it: the blue wikilink should be enough. Or do you want I change the format of the footnote? If so, could you, please, help me? Thanks. JohnCD, I don't understand your point about the prize by the Italian Physical Society. I inserted the blue wikilink to the society, and a citation displaying the prize. Could you, please, be more precise? Thank you again. Thanks, DGG. Michoball (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, JohnCD. Fixed

Great, JohnCD! You were right about the link to the prize of the Italian Physical Society! I have now fixed its link, which now correctly displays the prize. Moreover, I removed the misleading footnote to the m-quotient, and I inserted it in the text between round brackets. Michoball (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Other additions

Hello. I have added links to reviews by other peers to some works of Iorio. They are 3-4 stars for a total of 5 stars. Please, notice that you will not find anything else for other scientists having articles here. Michoball (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

FRAS - putting "Elected Fellow" in italics makes it look like a high honour. Sorry, but it isn't 1, 2 - details on your talk page. I am not being picky, I am advising for your own good - exaggerated claims (a) make you look desperate and (b) will give objectors something to latch onto. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JohnCD. Thank you for your suggestion, which I just implemented. Please, give me any other suggestions. Michoball (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Allow recreation The article is a thicket and has too much peripheral material and far too many references. However, I see some distinguished editors consider the references to be too few so I shall defer. These are matters for normal editing which is possibly impeded by the current userspace status. So, I think it would be best to restore the article since the individual likely meets at least WP:PROF #1 coupled with adequate verification within the article. Given that the article is prima facie supportable even given its BLP status, these are AFD matters. If there is to be AFD2 I hope it will be conducted in a more orderly fashion than AFD1 and I shall be keeping well out of the way! Thincat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment on Jay and the h-index an the g-index

To Jay and to all admins: Actually, from NASA ADS there is not even need of doing any calculation to have the h-index. It is simply a matter of visual inspection of the articles listed by the database according to the number of citations. The m-quotient is a simple division of the h-index by the number of years of activity, whihc is rather elementary, it seems to me. You obtain the g-index simply by adding (it sounds: "twenty plus sixteen plus eight plus...") the citations of the papers listed by the database, and compare the total obtained to the square of your g (it sounds like: "twenty five times twenty five equal to six hundreds and twenty five). Michoball (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CALC does not allow Wikipedia editors to make these kinds of calculations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, those elementary calculation (and, I repeat, there are no calculation at all involved in the h-index) reflect the source, i.e. NASA ADS Michoball (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And you say this based on your lengthy experience with Wikipedia and its policies? You can repeat this all you like, it won't change the fact that use of the database violates WP:NOR and this calculation in particular violates WP:CALC. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jay. Have you, or somebody else here, dealt with other existing articles in which h-index and g-index were removed? I see that other articles exist here with them listed. Anyway, I read WP:NOR and, especially, WP:CALC: there is absolutely nothing that forbids me or anyone else to use databsases like NASA ADS, and that forbids me to display that referenced calculation (which are not, indeed, calculation in the case of the h-index: this is a fact, not a matter of speculation). It seems just a personal opinion of yours. Michoball (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)