Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:30, 10 April 2011

Lorenzo Iorio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lorenzo Iorio is a gravitational physicist research how astronomical object interact with their surroundings. He is a researcher working for the Italian Ministry of Education. Almost all researchers/educators in Italy work for the Ministry in some fashion (University Prof, scientist at a public lab). So, I think he can be best described as an independent research scientist not affiliated with a particular lab or university.

The previous article of Iorio's was deleted. It went under deletion review 14 months later and was allowed to be recreated (albeit under false pretenses). Iorio's article was recently deleted on the Italian Wiki.

Iorio's first AfD, deletion review and current article have had alot of sockpuppetry happening. The Italian AfD and article was also marred in sockpuppetry. Some of the sockpuppets on both Wikis have the same name. Telling if what a sockpuppet added is relevant or somebody deleted what the thought was a sockpuppet comment, but wasn't, makes this a tricky article to decipher (also why I'm doing a longer nomination than normal).

Among the notable things mentioned in the article are:

Five "papers of him obtained high rankings in the Top 25 Hottest Articles classification of New Astronomy". The period of the classification is 3 months and a look reveals most articles in the classification were ones published the previous 3 months.
"Iorio received in 2003 a prize for his scientific activity by the Italian Physical Society". While the society hands out some prestigious awards, they also hand out "prizes" for graduating with a PhD, best presentation at the conference by a young scholar, etc.
Published 130 papers and "the h-index of Iorio is 20". Some of the publications he was a co-author of seems impressive. On the vast majority of publications, Iorio is the sole author. A look at who cited Iorio's publications, 45 citations, 42 citations, 41 citations and 37 citations, reveals the vast majority of citations are from Iorio's later publications. Bgwhite (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sysop on the italian wiki and I followed this "case" there. The research of Bgwhite is very strong and correct. I support the proposal. If you need some help for translations of the italian references/comments, feel free to ask. --Lucas (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What proposal is it that you support? To delete? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, of course: this is a deletion proposal :) (I copy this message down to be more clear). --Lucas (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say: keep it. In fact, most of these discussions are not about the merit and the content of the article itself, but on the sockpuppets issue. It is absolutely correct and necessary to block those sockpuppets, but the evaluation of the content of an article should not be affected by it. On some points by Bgwhite: the article does't deal with the affiliation of Iorio. Point 1) One could make a little cleanup of that. Actually, the prize of the Italian Physical Society to Iorio is not just one for graduating with a PhD, best presentation at the conference by a young scholar, etc. Most importantly, Bgwhite in point 3) used Google scholar, which is not complete. NASA ADS shows a completely different situation, including much more stuff than Google. Look at the most cited paper by Iorio. It has 54 citations which are mainly by other scientists. Now his h-index is 21 and his g-index is 26. All in all, we are not deciding here to hire Iorio in our department, but just if this article can stay on Wikipedia. And several criteria of WIkipedia are met about notability, etc. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand whether the nominator is advocating Keep or Delete and on what grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well, when someone nominates an article for deletion, he usually advocates its deletion, doesn't he? Although Bgwhite might have a bit clearer about his position, his pointing out that not all Physical Society prizes are notable prizes etc. seems to confirm that he is actually suggesting that this article should be deleted. [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 14:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Although the article is full of vainglorious puffery a Google Scholar h index of 18 would often predispose to a pass of WP:Prof#C1. However, in this case, in a search of the 'cited by' lists on GS much labor is needed to find citations that are not self-citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. From what can be understood from the article, this is a good researcher, just like thousands more in any given country, rather than one who has "made significant impact" or any other criterion for academics. For instance, the "prize for his scientific activity" is a "premio di operosità scientifica" (literally, something like "prize for scientific hard work"). I find nowhere what this is supposed to mean, but a quick google search for premio "operosità scientifica" shows a large number of people being awarded it, rather than it being "a highly prestigious academic award" (and the only proof given for the prize is a scan hosted in a non-descript website). [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 15:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the tone of this discussion, I wish to let you know that Bgwhite, in asking if I am a sockpuppet, wrote that I am singing the virtues of Lorenzo Iorio. Apart from the fact that he did not give any reasons for supporting his suspect-I merely partecipated this discussion-it does not seem to me correct showing, perhaps, also a bias by Bgwhite against the subject of this article. Going to the substance of the article, dear Xxanthippe, certainly some minor points can be deleted, but also your vainglorious puffery does not seem to me adequate and induces little suspects. Google scholar is not complete. You should use NASA ADS, from which it turns out that he has more than 600 non-self citations. criterion for academics is satisfied since he has an h-index of 21. Dear Goochelaar, I may remove some minor points, but if I edit this article, certainly somebody would immediately suspect me of sockpuppetry...Anyway, please note that it is incorrect that the only proof given for the prize is a scan hosted in a non-descript website. Indeed, in the Hindawi webpage, not run by Iorio, it is explicitly stated, along with other information. I could make such a change, but...what if other screams that I am a sockpuppet? Anyway, the links to the media (magazines, etc.) dealing with him prove that the notability criterion is satisfied. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megalobingosaurus, I do not know what you mean by "it is incorrect that the only proof given for the prize is a scan hosted in a non-descript website". Last time I checked, the scan is the only reference given for the prize, hence it is correct that the only proof given is that one. I believe nobody will criticise you if you make impartial, sourced edits. I myself shall not, at least. For all I care, you may be Iorio himself, and this is ok, as long as you give full and independent sources for all your claim. (As for Hindawi, I doubt they do independent investigation about their authors' curriculum. A webpage by the Italian Physical Society, or a reference to some official publication by them would be far more interesting, and would throw some more light about the nature of this prize. Feel free to provide such information here, as you are so conversant with the subject.) [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Goochelaar, I removed a non-relevant info, I removed the link to the scanned copy of the SIF prize by including a reliable secondary source. I don't see why you are questioning Hindawi. Thank you for your constructive and useful remarks. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my supporting to the deletion proposal: most of the distinctions listed in the article, when looked more carefully upon, feel rather dubious, at times to such a point that the idea may come upon one that somebody intended them as a joke on Iorio. For instance, take the claim "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences invited Iorio to submit appropriate candidates for the Crafoord Prize 2006, the most prestigious award in the field of geosciences". The source given is a publishing house which hardly is in direct constant contact with the Swedish Academy of Sciences. Delving further, one finds in Iorio's curriculum a similar claim, but this time it is described as an "invitation on behalf of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences"; and there is a link to a pdf file, reproducing an email message sent by a German company (which in turn seems to be little more than a company organising meetings and offering other academic services), in which they explain what Crafoord prize is and apparently forward a generic call for invitations. [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Goochelaar, in the article the issue of the Crafoord Prize is neither sourced with that .pdf (indeed, it would not be considered as a reliable secondary source) nor with Iorio's personal webpage (the same). It is sourced with the Hindawi site. You did not yield reasons to doubt about it, and, actually, I think there are not. It is not plausible that a third party business website do not indepenently check the information about its authors. Anyway, it is difficult to believe that Crafoord Prize invitations are sent out to everybody. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as said above: I am sysop on the italian wiki and I followed this "case" there. The research of Bgwhite is very strong and correct. I support the proposal. If you need some help for translations of the italian references/comments, feel free to ask.). I quote Goochelaar too. --Lucas (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucas, basically you did not discuss the merit and the content of the article. You mainly refer to the sockpuppet issue and to what happened in a previous discussion in .it wiki. I checked it, and that AfD seems to me insufficient. First of all, it was started by an admin, Ignlig, who manifestly was adverse to Iorio: suffices it to say that he clealry wrote that he preferred not to write what he really thinks to avoid legal actions againts him. Then, he removed all and only the references by Iorio in all the articles he found in .it wiki. Finally, in the entire .it wiki AfD issues like notability, verifiability, etc. were basically ignored. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to speak about the italian proposal we can do it in the italian wiki, first of all because it is the right place and second because it is easier to me. The 2000 sockpuppets here and there are just a "problem" (and a rule violation, and please remember that your current user it has been described as a possibile sockpuppet), but this do not affect the un-notability issue. As you know because you are a italian native, "another" user said on it.wiki just the same things you are saying here: and you already have the answer to all of your questions in the italian proposal (first: about un-notability proofs; and then: fake infos in the article / confused infos, spam, sockpuppeting, and so on). --Lucas (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucas, actually you introduced here the discussion of the italian wiki since the beginning, not me. About the "same things" written by "other" users nd me, one could say almost the same about you and other people here. Anyway, it is not relevant: the content of a statement is important, not the person(s) making it. Then, after asking me not to consider anymore the italian discussion, you actually continue to deal with it asking me to answer the questions in the italian proposal. It seems contradictory and not pertinent. We have to assess the present article in en wiki, not the italian one. About the un-notability proofs, the links to several, independent and reliable secondary sources on international mass-media in various languages, and the Vienna talk passed to mass media meet the WP notability criteria. The same for h-index, etc.. There are not fake infos in this article (could you, please, tell us what are them for you?). There are not confused infos (please, specify). There is not spam. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Megalobingosaurus identifies himself as a 22 year old student of life sciences at an Italian university. He is to be congratulated on his good knowledge of the area of scientific citations, which is uncommon in one so young. His contributions are welcome here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Everything in the article seems like ordinary activities that any reasonably active university professor would be doing. No indication of real notability. Perchloric (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ::: Dear Lucas, actually you introduced here the discussion of the italian wiki since the beginning, not me. About the "same things" written by "other" users nd me, one could say almost the same about you and other people here. Anyway, it is not relevant: the content of a statement is important, not the person(s) making it. Then, after asking me not to consider anymore the italian discussion, you actually continue to deal with it asking me to answer the questions in the italian proposal. It seems contradictory and not pertinent. We have to assess the present article in en wiki, not the italian one. About the un-notability proofs, the links to several, independent and reliable secondary sources on international mass-media in various languages, and the Vienna talk passed to  mass media meet the WP notability criteria. The same for h-index, etc.. There are not fake infos in this article (could you, please, tell us what are them for you?). There are not confused infos (please, specify). There is not spam. [[User:Megalobingosaurus|Megalobingosaurus]] ([[User talk:Megalobingosaurus|talk]]) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. [[User:Megalobingosaurus|Megalobingosaurus]] identifies himself as a 22 year old student of life sciences at an Italian university. He is to be congratulated on his good knowledge of the area of scientific citations, which is uncommon in one so young. His contributions are welcome here. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 00:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC).
+*'''Delete''' Everything in the article seems like ordinary activities that any reasonably active university professor would be doing. No indication of real notability. [[User:Perchloric|Perchloric]] ([[User talk:Perchloric|talk]]) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)