Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco Selleri

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 keep. This nomination appears to be in bad faith, as the nominator is abusing multiple accounts (still working on identifying them all, but it's certain there are several). There's only one other user here in favor of deleting the article, and those arguments in favor of keeping the article are well-formed. Please open a new AfD if you believe this should be deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Franco Selleri

Franco Selleri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Nominate for Deletion: The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The list of "books" cited in the article has much overlap with the list of "books" in the articles of certain other individuals (e.g., Alwyn Van der Merwe), and it evidently just denotes contributors to edited volumes, and these do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reputable sources. Also, the linked biography is at the web site of Natural Philosophy Alliance, a well known organization of physics cranks, not a reputable scientific organization. Also, there are no secondary sources on Mr Selleri, which is a strong indication of lack of notability. In addition, the editor who created this page (Webmaster6) may have a conflict of interest, since he created or edited (almost exclusively) the articles on Alwyn Van der Merwe ‎and the Foundation of Physics and other articles, all closely associated with the subject of this article.P0CF1A (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• keep seems to have a festschrift in a springer journal, is in the new york academy of science, and is covered in the niels bohr's institute's series of interviews of living scientists. if he's not notable... then... we need to cut about 98% of the rest of the physicists i'd guess. this might be an article that needs cleanup, but cleanup isn't a reason for deletion, this should be a snowball or speedy keep. Also note that this is the nominator's only action in wikipedia, seems a bit strange.--Buridan (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Strange indeed. Note that the prodder of the article, 130.76.32.182, has had many warnings. For "author:Franco Selleri" GS gives cites of 181, 177, 99, 70, 51, 46... h-index about 17. Seems ample for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC).
• keep Perfectly clear for me that the prodder of the article is running a personal mission here. The conflict of interest is totally nonsense (specially with your ip address that is full with conflict) as I created the article Alwyn Van der Merwe and added a link in Foundation of Physics to it. I do not understand what the connection is with the current article. Plus if somebody's name is on the author list of a books he is an author of that book and full stop. Who are you to question which books he wrote or not? None of the accusations stand. --Webmaster6 (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment My belief is that the subject doesn't meet any of the Notability criteria listed at WP:Prof. Since this seems to be disputed, let's take them one at a time, and see if we can isolate which criteria might apply.

(1) The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

This one clearly doesn't apply. Any physicist whose publications are concentrated in known crackpot venues such as Aperion and the Natural Philosophy Alliance, along with Foundations of Physics (which is about as UNprestegious a journal as you can get in physics) clearly is far from making a significant impact in the field of physics. Also, note that the criterion calls for independent sources, whereas Alwyn Van der Merwe (whose Wikipedia article was created by the same person who created Selleri's, and who produced the above-mentioned "festschrift", and co-authored most of the "books" listed in Selleri's article) is clearly not an independent source.

(2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

This clearly doesn't apply.

(3) The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

Clearly doesn't apply.

(4) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Clearly doesn't apply.

(5) The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

Nope.

(6) The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Nope.

(7) The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Nope.

(8) The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

Nope.

(8) The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Nope.

So, in summary, I don't think the person qualifies as notable under any of the Wikipedia criteria. If anyone disagrees, can you cite which criteria you believe applies? And on what grounds you believe it?

By the way, for another perspective, see the following web page: http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/removal-of-the-franco-selleri-page-by-wikipedia/ P0CF1A (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. WoS shows 53 publications with an h-index of 14 and most of these are low-author-number or single author papers. That means that he did the work and is not riding the coattails of a larger research group. Coupled with Xxanthippe's observations from GS, this seems to handily satisfy WP:PROF #1. I can't speak to the "known crackpot venues" referred to above, but the closing admin should please note that publications like Physics Letters and Physical Review (which the subject has frequently published in) are flagship journals in physics and are precisely the kind of publication venues that connote "impact". For example, in the ISI Journal Index ratings of impact (the main index service in physics), Physics Letters B is ranked 7th in the category of multidisciplinary physics while Physical Review A is ranked 6th in atomic physics. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

• Question Could you (or anyone else) provide some citations to the "frequent" papers published in Physics Letters and/or Physical Review? I ask because the subject himself has discussed how "Foundations of Physics" was created specifically as a venue for people like him who could not get published elsewhere, and whose careers were endangered by their non-mainstream views. Also, Agricola44, you say you can't speak to the known crackpot venues... I think that's unfortunate, because the bulk of the subject's writings appear there, so it would be helpful for editors to be familiar with those writings and the status of those venues when deliberating on the question, i.e., whether the subject's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The only publications of the subject that I'm aware of were in places that were neither independent nor reliable. So, if you can cite the (presumably large) number of papers in reputable journals, it would be helpful. A small number of such papers obviously wouldn't qualify the author as notable, so hopefully you can cite a couple dozen from reputable sources. Off hand I'd guess that the vast majority of the 53 papers you mentioned were in crackpot venues. If I'm wrong, please correct me.P0CF1A (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Response. First, as to your opinion "I think that's unfortunate", I'll remind you that we're here at AfD specifically and only to assess whether the subject is notable enough to retain his article. We're not judging the quality of the article, whether he's a crackpot or not, whether the article acceptably addresses this issue, etc. If these are indeed problems, they can be fixed by proper editing. The reason I'm not speaking to the alleged "known crackpot venues" is that they are entirely unnecessary in establishing Selleri's notability as a legitimate physicist. As a disclaimer, let me say that I'm not familiar with his work in the least, but the fact that he has boatloads of entries in the standard index (WoS), as well as boatloads of citations to this work do furnish sufficient evidence of notability, specifically as codified by WP:PROF #1. I'm afraid your assumption about most of his work being in crackpot venues is indeed wrong. I list for your inspection the first 10 articles in his WoS entry from either the Physics Letters or Physical Review families of journals (since those are what I've referred to above). There are more of these, as well more articles in other top physics journals like Journal of Physics. I won't list all 53 WoS entries in the interest of space, but you're certainly invited to check/confirm these for yourself. (FYI: The institution listed on each is University of Bari, as we should expect.)

1) Local realism has not been refuted by atomic cascade experiments, Marshall TW, Santos E, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 98 (1-2) 5-9, 1983.

2) Enhanced photon detection in electron-paramagnetic-res type experiments, Garuccio A, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 103 (3), 99-103, 1984.

3) Quantum-mechanics versus local realism for neutral kaon pairs, Privitera P, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS B 296 (1-2), 261-272, 1992.

4) Incompatibility between local realism and quantum mechanics for pairs of neutral kaons, Selleri F, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 56 (5), 3493-3506, 1997.

5) Local realistic photon models and epr-type experiments, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 108 (4), 197-202, 1985.

6) Quantum mechanics versus local realism for neutral kaon pairs, Foadi R, Selleri F, PHYSICAL REVIEW A 61 (1), art num. 012106, 2000 .

7) Quantum mechanics versus local realism and a recent EPR experiment on K-0(K)over-bar(0) pairs, Foadi R, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS B 461 (1-2), 123-130, 1999.

8) Local realistic models and nonphysical probabilities, Home D, Lepore VL, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 158 (8), 357-360, 1991.

9) Amplification of light from an undulatory point-of-view, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 120 (8), 371-376, 1987.

10) Empty waves do not induce stimulated-emission in laser media - reply, Selleri F, PHYSICS LETTERS A 132 (2-3), 72-74, 1988.

This body of work and the associated h-index of at least 14 are very compelling evidence of notability under WP:PROF #1, irrespective of any work in crank venues, which again I remind you I have no knowledge of, nor would I consider it to be relevant. Respecfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

I don't have access to the WoS database, so I can only evaluate based on what you've reported. We have a sharp difference of opinion as to whether these 10 papers constitute a body of work that establishes "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." If everyone who has published 10 or more papers (over their entire career of 40 years) is to be considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia biographical article, then I think virtually every academic on the planet is "notable". Also, these papers themselves are obviously not an "independent source". There are no reputable secondary sources asserting that the subject has made a significant impact on physics. What exactly is the significant impact that the subject has made on physics? Each of the titles on your list seems to consist of re-stating Bell's theorem, over and over and over again. Also, the subject himself has described how he was passed over and not made a full professor for a decade (1970 to 1980) because of his non-mainstream beliefs, and of his difficulty in getting his papers accepted by reputable journals, and that only in Italy would someone like him even be able to have held a position, etc., etc. In view of this, and the complete absence of reputable secondary sources, (even setting aside his numerous publications in crank venues, and active participation in crackpot organizations like The Natural Philosophy Alliance), it is very difficult to see how anyone can claim that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I ask again: What has been his significant impact?P0CF1A (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Your remarks suggest that you're either new here, or are willfully looking past evidence that does not futher your agenda. The facts are these, nota bene: WoS shows 53 papers. WoS only lists peer-reviewed publications and his have lots of citations. There is a long, well-established consensus that use of a scientist's work, as evidenced by citations (here >300), satisfies WP:PROF #1. You seem to want a source that says he's notable, but this is not necessary. I'm sorry I can't explain this any more plainly because you seem unable to comprehend that large numbers of citations are the very sufficient evidence that is needed. Finally, you'll pardon me if I put more credence in the peer-reviewed acceptance in top physics journals of his papers than in your opinion that his work consists of simply "re-stating Bell's theorem". Please consider the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree. Instead, put the information about any crank activities, memberships, problems with promotion, etc. in the article itself! (Reliably sourced, of course.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC).
• Question to P0CF1A. As I said above, I'm not familiar with the person or his work. However, I just noticed that nowhere in the titles I listed above is "Bell's Theorem" mentioned. Yet, you seem to already know that that is the subject matter of at least some of these papers, suggesting you know more about this individual than you're perhaps disclosing. May I ask if you have some personal agenda? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

We may have identified the reason for the difference between our perceptions. I'm well-enough acquainted with the field of theoretical physics to know that Bell's theorem states that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism. Hence when I look at a list of papers with titles that say some variation on the words "quantum mechanics is incompatible with local realism" I recogize that those papers are all just repeating Bell's theorem (over and over and over). I take it from your comments that you are unacquainted with theoretical physics, which places you at a disadvantage (I think) when it comes to assessing whether or not the subject of this article has made a significant impact in the field of theoretical physics.

As to the statistical numbers of papers and citations, just for fun (and to test the correctness of my assessment) I found one particular paper by Selleri, announcing that the Sagnac effect proves that Einstein was an idiot and special relativity is logically inconsistent. Now, this paper (which is utter nonsense) has some citations, so I checked one of those citations, a paper by Rizzi and Tartaglia, in which it is shown that (surprise) Mr Selleri was mistaken, and the Sagnac effect is NOT inconsistent with special relativity, and Einstein was not an idiot. Now, admittedly this is just a single example, but surely you can see that at least in this particular case the paper and the citation do not in any way support the thesis that Selleri has had a significant impact on theoretical physics. Likewise I can also recognize in the titles to some of Selleri's "books" (which are really compendiums of papers written by various crackpots from around the world, mostly Russia) that the subject is cold fusion. I happen to know for a fact that Selleri's views on cold fusion have not had a significant impact on theoretical physics. And so on.

You asked if I have a personal agenda. I would say it's more of an anti-agenda. The point of view that I think it unsuitable to serves as the basis for editing Wikipedia articles is exemplified by the link below.

http://atomicprecision.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/evidence-against-wikipedia-letters-from-louis-de-broglie-to-franco-selleri/

You see, some individuals have been trying to insert crackpot physics organizations into Wikipedia (several are listed in the Selleri article), and they have been thwarted for the most part by verious editors telling them that those organizations are not notable. So, the crackpots then set about to create articles from members of those organizations, for the purpose of building up the perceived notability of those organizations, and ultimately for overthrowing the facist defenders of the bankrupt scientific orthodoxy (i.e., reputable scientists). I think these individuals have an agenda that detracts from the quality of Wikipedia, and violates Wikipedia policies, and their agenda deserve to be thwarted. I'm opposed to their agenda.P0CF1A (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. That is very interesting. You're correct – I have no special training in theoretical physics. However, I still cannot help but to notice all those citations that are in peer-reviewed journals. Are you asserting that all, or at least most of his work, even in journals like Physics Letters and Physical Review is basically pseudo-scientific bunk? It would certainly be helpful to have persons closer to the subject weigh-in here. Thanks for your explanation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

• Comment and question.

- Comment: If the final result is a keep, I would recommend rewriting the article since the text is dangerously similar to the "About the Author" section here [1] and almost identical to a paragraph here [2], and may be a copyright violation.

- Question: Is it common in Physics to write books? I would have thought that research in this discipline is published in peer-reviewed journals. Franco Selleri has authored two publications in journals with names that even someone like me (who is outside of the field) recognizes: the article in Phys. Rev. Lett. from the 1960s and Phys. Lett. A from the 1980s (4 and 24 GS cites, respectively). These outlets suggest that he was a mainstream physicist until the 1980s. I have no way of telling whether his other publications and the books in the later period are serious science or not.

--CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So, the subject has succeeded in getting published a grand total of TWO (2) papers in high quality reputable journals? Surely that does not support the claim that his "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." And by the way, many (if not most) of the references to the subject's writings are for the purpose of refuting him. It's necessary, when trying to assess "significant impact", to actually have some idea of what impact (if any) the person has had. My assertion is that the subject of this article has not had a "significant impact" on physics as represented in independent reliable sources.

-Answer. It is not uncommon in physics for people to write books (Dirac wrote a famous book on Quantum Mechanics) although they usually do most of their publishing of original work in refereed journals. I reject the imputations of others that 'Foundations of Physics' is a crank journal. It has a highly distinguished editor and publishes reputable work that is externally refereed although, as its mission statement says, it casts its net wider than some other journals do. Even if the subject of the article were a 'crank' (and I do not accept the minority view that implies that he is) then the many sources show that he is a notable crank and merits an article in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The crackpot venues I mentioned were anything published by Apieron and the Natural Philosophy Alliance, two organizations well known as havens for kooks and crackpots. I then juxtaposed this with the comment that Foundations of Physics "is about as UNprestegious a journal as you can get in physics". It has certainly published crackpot material in the past while under the editorship of Selleri's co-author Alwyn Van der Merwe. A couple of years ago there was a change of editor, with G. t'Hooft apparently taking the job. Whether the quality of papers will improve is unclear, but even now their editorial policy says "we don't necessarily agree with what we publish", so this is not the usual kind of "peer reviewed journal" that qualified as a reputable source for scientific information in Wikipedia. It is more like an opinion journal where a wide range of people are allowed to voice their views... views that couldn't be published anywhere else. So this does not support the claim that the subject of this article has been significantly influential ("significant impact") in the reputable physics community.

Whether or not he is notable as a crank is a separate question, but I would caution everyone about creating a Wikipedia page on a living person on the grounds that he is a crank. There would certainly be no shortage of material to support that, but I think it's usually a very bad idea to create such pages. They are simply insulting to the person. Wikipedia has recently been trying to clean up its act when it comes to articles about living people. I doubt that the subject of this article would appreciate being included for his notability as a crank, with full documentation of his crankishness. So, in my opinion, if we can't find notability under the Prof criteria, we should delete.P0CF1A (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly, based on the h-index, sources provided by Buridan etc above. Whether someone has published in outlets regarded as crank or fringe is irrelevant, and there is no evidence provided here or in the article that Selleri is regarded as a crank or fringe figure, which of course would have to be quite reliably sourced to be used in the article. The number of publications (just one would be enough, if it were good enough or cited enough), or where they are published has much less to do with academic notability as understood here than their number of (mainstream academic) citations.John Z (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Xxanthippe and Agricola44. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete Unnotable academically except for association with the pseudoscientific web group around Myron Evans, Rugero Santilli and Franceso Fucilla. The role of Webmaster6 (talk · contribs) on WP has been to add the names of people chosen by Santilli for his awards. Three articles on films created by Webmaster6 were recently deleted - see the discussion on WP:FTN here [3]; see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diego_Lucio_Rapoport. This seems to be part of a campaign coordinated by Myron Evans to promote his cronies, as evidenced by this entry on his blog about Selleri [4] and this running commentary by Fucilla [5]. Selleri is a recipient of one of the 2010 physics awards given by Fucilla [6]; Florentin Smarandache is another award winner. No need for WP to become a mirror site for a crank pseudoscience blog. Amongst other things, Selleri has rejected the Big Bang [7], has proposed his own alternative to special relativity and believes that quantum mechanics is incorrect [8], [9]. Mathsci (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Mathsci asserts "Unnotable academically" but does not provide anything in this line to refute the evidence of academic notability brought forward by Agricola44. The rest of the argument seems to be based on the question of whether Seleri is a crank. It is possible to be both a notable academic and a crank. So far we have no policy that would allow crankiness to trump notability.
  • The number of publications is small for a physicist. I would also look for prestigious mainstream journals like Annals of Physics, Nuclear Physics, etc. There is a huge question mark next to Apeiron. As a physicist, Selleri seems no more distinguished than the average lecturer in the UK; he is definitely outside the mainstream. It would be impossible for example to describe any contributions he has made in physics beyond scepticism based on his interpretation of other people's work (eg Bell's theorem). That to me is a major problem. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to be the case that 53 is a small number of peer refereed research publications. Nobel Prizewinner Lars Onsager, who worked in academia through all his career, has few more than 60 to be found in GS. The presentation of 'Annals of Physics' as an exemplary journal is perhaps unfortunate as one of the Bogdanov papers was published there. Also, much of the work of Selleri has not been on nuclear physics. The papers by Selleri found by Agricola44 are in leading physics journals. But all this is irrelevant. As one contributor to this AfD points out, even a single paper with enough cites will suffice to achieve notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

• Incidentally, the nominator P0CF1A (talk · contribs) is evidently not new (first and only edits at this AFD), admits to being opposed to fringe science, with an interest in Cold Fusion. Is his username by any chance short for "Physics 0, Cold Fusion 1" or some similar comment displaying a close interest in, and unhappiness with the result of, a recent Arbcomm case? Presumably he is a sockpuppet, possibly of someone else who wants such articles deleted. Quotient group (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Hard to say whom you might have in mind (recently arrived Quotient group (talk · contribs) looks like a sockpuppet account). This has nothing to do with cold fusion. However, Webmaster6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be connected with Francesco Fucilla, so has some kind of WP:COI. At least five of his recent articles have been deleted, perhaps more. The articles all seem to be connected with the Teleseo-Galileo prize financed by Fucilla. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of arguments put forward by myself and others. The extensive investigations of Agricola44, particularly the data from WoS show that WP:Prof #1 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC).
  • According to the SLAC spires index [10], only a joint paper written in 1961 at CERN in elementary particle theory seems to have a significant number of citations. The remaining articles are short notes, often uncited. For comparison, here is the spires listing for Peter Goddard [11] (the celebrated Goddard-Kent-Olive paper is cited over 600 times). This should be compared with Peter Landshoff [12] (210 articles) and Hugh Osborn [13] (82 articles), both eventually professors of theoretical physics in DAMTP. And here's one of their colleagues [14] (42 articles) also with no WP article but with some far more influential papers. This illustrates what I mean by "academically unnotable". All four of these physicists have made far more notable contributions than Selleri. Mathsci (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC).

Quite the reverse. Xxanthippe and Agricola44 are using a criterion that would require every lecturer in DAMTP to have a wikipedia page. Both of them have yet to explain why a series of short notes with few or no citations shows academic distinction. At the moment neither of these users has presented any kind of convincing reason. The low citation rate for Selleri shows that he has made little or no impact in mainstream physics. Perhaps worse: his work might enjoy some notoriety. There are 57 articles recorded in Mathematical Reviews. Here is a review of one his most recent articles Superluminal signals and the resolution of the causal paradox [15]:

"The author begins by summarizing continuing claims by him and others of superluminal signals. Generally such claims are misguided. To date there are no confirmed experiments or astrophysical observations of propagation of physical information in inertial frames at speeds exceeding the measured vacuum velocity of light. This fact is of course consistent with Einstein's theory of special relativity. To date, no confirmed violation of this theory has ever been found. The author proceeds to review his earlier proposal of space-time transformations generally deviating from the Lorentz transformations of special relativity by a dependence on a time-synchronization parameter. He unconvincingly argues that his transformations are consistent with superluminal signaling. The author concludes by reviewing his earlier polemics on quantum theory, in the context of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations, attempting to argue consistency with superluminal signaling, while totally ignoring the many recent experimental confirmations of quantum entanglement, particularly in the burgeoning field of quantum information processing."

This public statement from 2007 in a very widely read publication (where negative views are discouraged) indicates that Selleri's work is not highly regarded and has not been accepted by the mainstream physics community. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There seems to be agreement that the relevant measure of notability is WP:PROF#1. There also seems to be near-agreement that Selleri has published in mainstream as well as non-mainstream physics (referred to as "crank physics" above). P0CF1A and MathSci and do not agree with treating both types of publications equally. I propose the following procedure: ask whether Selleri is notable according to WP:PROF #1 in mainstream and non-mainstream physics separately (as if they were different disciplines) using the usual tools of citation counting and the h-index. If he is notable according to either, keep the article. Otherwise, delete. If the article is kept per non-mainstream physics, the article should reflect this (it has to be rewritten anyway because of copyvio). Neutral words, such as "non-mainstream", "controversial", "polemic", etc. could be used if reliable sources exist. In think that this proposal addresses all points of view expressed in the discussion so far. Finally, as a user of Wikipedia, I would be interested in reading about controversies in Physics and about their proponents if they are notable enough, no matter how wrong their propositions are. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of the process that you suggest has already been carried out above. Web of Science carries citations from only mainstream journals. According to Agricola44, WoS gives an h-index of at least 14, which establishes WP:Prof #1. Google Scholar casts a wider net and may contain items which some may regard as "fringe". Fringeyness is not easy to define and lies very much in the eye of the beholder. Some people take the view that ideas they don't agree with are "fringe". There are even some (myself not included) who consider String theory to verge on pseudoscience. It is not unknown for people to establish a reputation in mainstream science and then, later in their lives, move into areas that their colleagues consider "fringe". The physics Nobel Prizewinner Julian Schwinger was one of these. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

• Comment. The poster-child of this phenomenon is perhaps Brian Josephson:) More to the point: This case is obviously a complicated one and I think excellent points have been brought up on both sides. If I would be permitted to summarize: There is very plain evidence that he has published much work in mainstream physics journals, nevertheless, we are likewise concerned at the prospect of WP being utilized as a mouthpiece for pseudo-scientific views and work. I think CronopioFlotante has described the most sensible pathway toward resolution. Please read his proposal carefully and weigh-in – it could be the best way forward to obtain a consensus position. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

I don't think there is any danger of WP being utilised as a mouthpiece for fringe science as long as contentious issues are openly flagged. This is done admirably in the articles on Brian Josephson and Julian Schwinger. There is no reason why it cannot be done on this article too with some editing. I am more concerned by the attitude of some editors who appear to contend that the alleged fringe activities are best dealt with by deletion. There is no WP policy to say that certain topics are not to be written about; the only criterion is notability. I also caution editors about making judgments in an academic dispute when they have been exposed to only one side of the story. Having said that, I think that the suggestion of CronopioFlotante can usefully be followed. As I stated before, the subject achieves notability for his activities in mainstream science and on the basis of the evidence submitted to the AfD by other editors he appears to be notable for his fringe contributions as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

A well-made point, as usual Xxanthippe. Respcty, Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

I was about to mention another Fucilla-Santilli prizewinner Jeremy Dunning-Davies, which has been redeleted in the course of the day. If either Dunning-Davies or Selleri were a Nobel prize winner, no discussion like this would be taking place. Both Josephson and Schwinger have made outstanding contributions to mainstream physics. Selleri on the other hand has made no significant contribution to mainstream physics, contrary to what Xxanthippe is suggesting; and the review that I cited above is damning about the vast bulk of his fringe contributions. Mathsci (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci is interesting. Finds P0CF1A may be involved in sockery. Final determination awaited. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly adding my username shows the initiator was not being particularly intelligent - so far CU has identified him as a sock of at least 3 other users and has unsurprisingly dismissed any involvement by me. I have mentioned your name and Agricola44 because I found it quite odd that you were aware of the SPI. How did you know? I had no idea until I read what you just wrote.

Meanwhile, noone has produced any evidence so far of significant contributions to mainstream physics by Selleri. The spires records show very few indeed. It might be time to start another Francesco Fucilla thread on WP:FTN in view of all the games being played here. Mathsci (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Mathsci: I have the same level of "coordination" with you as I have with Xxanthippe, that being a fairly long history of independent edits on some of the same AfDs and articles. This reflects the fact that we all seem to have overlapping interests and, moreover it seems, high correlation of opinions. For example, I strongly share your position against fringe material, as evidenced by my arguments in the recent LaViolette AfD. There's no collusion, as you've implied. I personally have only used this single account since my first WP edit. So, please be very careful in raising accusations. No harm, this time. Let's get back to work. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (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.