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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Iorio[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lorenzo Iorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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:

  1. 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.
  2. "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.
  3. 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. Goochelaar (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.) Goochelaar (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Goochelaar (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
First: you (I, everyone) are welcome here until you do not break the rules. I totally agree with Goochelaar: 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. Anyway the sockepuppeting with the aim to change the community opinion is not permitted, and this behaviour applied on this article was demostrated on en.wiki and on it.wiki. But this is not the point. Second: I introduced the italian wiki just because it is a community witch know very well the italian system, it can therefore evaluate the situation, and it applies various guarantees of impartiality during the deletion procedure. I said, "if you need some help for translations of the italian references/comments feel free to ask": this is talking about contents, and not about users. Third: I repeat, if you want to speak about the italian procedure this is not the right place; if you want to speak about the italian notability of Iorio this is the right place (and i can help with translations); if you want to speak about the international notability of Iorio this is the right place. Fourh: to explain the notability, I think you should start from answering the strong opinion you can find here. The first question is: what is changed in the Iorio's notable activity from the last deletion decided here on en.wiki? Thanks. --Lucas (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe, I don't see the point of your speculations. They only serve to confuse other unexpert users. Go to NASA ADS, and see. He has 663 non-self citations, a h-index of 21, etc.
Please, note how Lucas operates: "I don't want to hear what you say", or "I refute to put my eye in the telescope". One could continue to present argumented and rational points, but he would continue to a priori refute them without discussing them because he had decided in advance. Until now, nothing from him: he has no arguments, and merely limit himself to just repeat what other said. And this is not aggressivity towards you (on the contrary, I've seen repeatedly aggressivity against ME, not YOU, and clearly a priori bias against the subject of the article), it is a fact. By the way, it is a minor point. Please, look at the substance. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking with older and expert colleagues and professors, it is the first case I hear that one calculates the h-index based only on not self-citations. What if one would do the same with all the other scientists? In this discussion Iorio has often been compared to other scientists; well, do the same for the other scientists having an article here, and let me know...All these are clearly and blatant proofs that there is a priori bias againts Iorio driven by the sockpuppet paranoia. Does wiki have some rule about such a way to compute h? Is there a criterion on WP:PROF#C1 or elsewhere stating that one should compute the h-index in this way? This is another breach of the wiki rules. Look at the previous recreation discussion: such calculating operations are not admitted. Indeed, in the article bibliometric information are sourced by an independent secondary source stating the index. Apart from the fact that he has 663 non-self citations: again, WP:PROF is met. Again, you violate the wiki rules, which I literally quoted. And you deliberately ignores the WP:Notability rules and the mass media coverage, which other scientists do not have. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must have very peculiar "older and expert colleagues and professors". The world at large is very wary of self-citation, and even our article about h-index mentions that it "can be manipulated through self-citations", giving as reference a paper (Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans (2011). "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis") about such manipulations, which mentions that some scholars "condemn [self-citation] as a means to artificially inflate bibliometric indicators" and describes the methods used to "strategically manipulating the h-index". Goochelaar (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another breaching of wiki rules by Goochelaar: indeed, he is directly accusing Iorio of deliberately manipulating his h-index. Otherwise, Goochelaar's writing has no sense. Of course, the cases cited by Goochelaar has not any connection with the case examined here. Another wiki rules breaking: Iorio has published several papers in highly reputable journals with high impact factors: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Journal of High Energy Physics, The Astronomy Journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Classical and Quantum Gravity, General Relativity and Gravitation: again, WP:PROF is met. Of course, you deliberately ignore that...Just like you deliberately continue to ignore WP:Notability wiki rules about mass media coverage, etc. which you don't like, so they do not exist for you. Really, a great discussion here, with very competent people! David Eppstein continues to give blatantly false numbers. Either he is not even able to run NASA ADS properly, and if so one cannot understand why he is here, or he deliberately and repeatedly falsify the figures. Again, these are facts, not speculations. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to NASA ADS, insert "Iorio, Lorenzo" i the author field, choose all the three boxes "Astronomy", "Physics", "ArXiv", then choose "sort by citations" and you get the Iorio papers ordered by citatins. One finds (note that David Eppstein does not specify how he sorted out the papers in getting his "numbers"): 1) 54 tot cit - 5 self cit = 49 (David Eppstein yields 40) 2) 38 tot cit - 9 self cit = 29 (David Eppstein yields 23) 3) 36 tot cit - 0 self cit = 36 (David Eppstein yields 16) 4) 35 tot cit - 29 self cit = 6 (David Eppstein yields 15) 5) 33 tot cit - 21 self cit = 22 (David Eppstein yields 14) 6) 33 tot cit - 13 self cit = 20 (David Eppstein yields 14) 7) 31 tot cit - 27 self cit = 4(David Eppstein yields 11) 8) 29 tot cit - 20 self cit = 9 (David Eppstein yields 11) 9) 27 tot cit - 9 self cit = 18(David Eppstein yields 10) 10) 26 tot cit - 4 self cit = 22(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 11) 25 tot cit - 1 self cit = 24 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 12) 25 tot cit - 14 self cit = 11 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 13) 25 tot cit - 9 self cit = 16(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 14) 25 tot cit - 13 self cit = 12 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 15) 24 tot cit - 3 self cit = 21 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 16) 22 tot cit - 14 self cit = 8(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 17) 21 tot cit - 5 self cit = 16 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 18) 21 tot cit - 14 self cit = 7 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 19) 21 tot cit - 17 self cit = 4(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 20) 21 tot cit - 9 self cit = 12 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 21) 21 tot cit - 14 self cit = 7(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 22) 20 tot cit - 3 self cit = 17 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 23) 18 tot cit - 4 self cit = 14(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 24) 17 tot cit - 2 self cit = 15 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 25) 16 tot cit - 11 self cit = 5 (David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) 26) 15 tot cit - 11 self cit = 4(David Eppstein stopped after 9 papers...) etc. etc. These numbers imply a "pure" h-index (which, of course, nobody computes anywhere. You will not find it elsewhere for any scientists here in wiki and in any other publication more or less academic: the "total" h-index is always displayed) equal to 14, not 9 by David Eppstein. Thus, WP:PROF#C1 is met. Again, I stress the high numbers of papers in high impact factor journals (this further concur to meet WP:PROF#C1, as per analytical description which state: "publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals") and, again, the media coverage which guarantees that WP:Notability is met. Moreover, they allow to meet also WP:PROF#C7: indeed, in the analytic description it is written: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."

Another breach of wiki rules is, perhaps, the wiki intercommunication between Lucas and Bgwhite on Iorio: go to their talk pages. It is surprising, since Lucas, who continuously cite the Italian wiki, wrote that the italian page was deleted also for spam.. Megalobingosaurus (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is as surprising as true. Anyway, this is my last answer too: please read carefully Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You have a lot of answers here about the central problem of this biography: the un-notability. Don't you agree with them? Are all the users ignorant? Maybe, but no problem: please stay calm and wait for the proposal end. Thanks. --Lucas (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, perhaps, I used sometimes a tone too rude. I make my apologies for that.Megalobingosaurus (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which categories of WP:Prof do you invoke here? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! Ok, Im'rather new here, and you probably will not take me too seriously, but this article should remain.

WP:PROF#C1 met
WP:PROF#C7 met
WP:Notability met

See you, folks Blue rose yy (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to expand on your arguments as others have done with theirs? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, Xan! Well, I have to say that also WP:PROF#C2 is likely met since he got not only the Italian Society Awards, but also those two other awards by Elsevier top cited awards. WP:PROF#C1 is ok for me since his bibliometric and his invited review article. I asked some friends of mine here in academic CNR Bologna, and they confirmed that a h-index of 21, or even of 14 is quite high, especially because he was the sole author in most cases. But perhaps the most clear case is WP:Notability and WP:PROF#C7. Many important and non-local science magazines (Scientific American, guys!), newspapers, wrote on him and his researches. See you! Blue rose yy (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
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.
Category