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. AdjustShift (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science[edit]

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Vanity article about unnotable pseudoscience web organization with no reliable secondary sources Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion[edit]

I am getting totally confused the meaning of this magic word Notability here. Why are you pushing this so hard? There are hundreds of article without any google hits. On the other hand why is the google is the judge in notability issues by chasing hits?

Answering to Quantpole who has been so kind to check up on Hungary but must be accidentally missed this page [[1]] I pretty much believe this address can qualify as British: Airport House, Purley Way, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 0XZ UK.

I would like to use this guidance in our case Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations

As you have found the awards. I also would like to ask you to devote some time and check who are those people at the award ceremony. I believe you can find some reliable person including Nobel laureate winners and so on.

This is a quote from the above page, I would like to ask you think about the highlighted parts: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Why is this massive fight against this organisation? Where does it come from? This is a non profit organisation which has absolutely no political or commercialise goals. Devoting massive amount of money from private sources to support scientists from all over the world. I believe none of you have read the aims and goals section of the article.

I would like to address you: Why Wikipedia treats us like criminals? Is it really a crime that we are lack of some google sources. So to make it simple no matter how much good this Academy can provide to the whole world, and to the science world without this current third party issue the Academy has to be deleted??? Why?

I am absolutely sure you could make this page stay. It is just a matter of point of view. I need you think about outside the box. If you want to you can let this article to evolute into a great Wikipedia article but we need more time. Please do not bother to answer unless you do not use your third party sources google wildcard.

Thank you for your time --Webmaster6 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated use of the first person plural "we" and "us" reflects that you are closely associated with this institute, correct? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your definition of notability and word as used in Wikipedia jargon are different. From WP:Notability, "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." Also from the sub-article on organizations, "Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline." In effect, this means that it doesn't matter how notable the people are who are in the organization, the organization by itself must be satisfy notability requirements. Practically, the effect of the rule is that in order to demonstrate notability, reliable, independent secondary sources about the subject must be found. Find those, and this article should pass the deletion.
Reliable, independent secondary sources are important. For one, they prove the subject exists and is what it claims to be. People make stuff up, going so far as to create fake webpages, blog entries, etc. to give the illusion that something exists. Without reliable, independent secondary sources, how is anyone going to know if this organization is in fact real? Another purpose of the notability rule is to keep Wikipedia from filling up with articles about every person's cat or school club. You are going to need to prove that "outsiders," i.e. people or organizations, preferably notable themselves, who are not part of this organization have cared enough about it to write something about it: that way they serve as reliable, independent, secondary sources. It may just be that the organization currently hasn't attracted enough attention so the sources don't exist yet. When the organization has attracted some attention and there are reliable, independent, secondary sources to prove it, recreate the article and cite them. Until then it will be deleted. Sifaka talk 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your answer. You put this parent child topic relationship in a very strange angle for me. In my interpretation an Academy is an intangible asset. The Academy is nothing without its members. How you can describe an organisation without its individuals. I believe it is nonsense. We can prove every single member of the Academy as a reliable source. For example
  • Franco Selleri [2].
  • From China, Chen-I-Wan [3]
  • Michael Duffy, he is the organizer of one of the most important conferences that has taken place eleven times at Imperial College, London and now extended to Moscow Technical University (Bauman) and to the Calcutta Mathematical Society . See [4]
  • Lawrence Paul Horwitz [5]
The Academy can provide thousands of publication by the members but we need more time. All I am asking why cannot you just put on the tag this article cites few sources please improve it??
The Academy has got associated institutes on an international scale, absolutely independent reliable secondary sources. What is the reason that Wiki cannot except that? Why can be the Academy on the Hungarian wikipedia without even a single problem?
I would like to ask you to tailor the WP:Notability rule for this case as a non profit organisation and share with me only that part that applies here. I think this parent child topic does not apply in this case. I need to know what would satisfy the notability rule, by examples? What kind of article or information that you are looking for on the google about this Academy? Please give me some concrete examples that you would accept. Thank you for your cooperation. --Webmaster6 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, the academy is nothing without its members then there is no need for an article on it: articles on its notable members would be quite sufficient. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please if you are not able to answer my questions at least do not twist my words. I came here for help and do not assume any wild or nonsense thoughts. Just think for one minute if these "notable" minds are formed an Academy what they are capable of. It is definitely worth to notice. I am certain I can get your information but I do not know what you need. Thank you. --Webmaster6 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, French Academy of Sciences is known to be notable (in the sense used in Wikipedia), as there are many books (reliable sources - written and published by someone who is reputed to be reliable in such area) written about it by writers who are independent of it (they are not its members, they are not its employees, etc.). Google Book search with "Académie des sciences" finds books like "Science and social status: the members of the Academie des sciences 1666-1750" by David J. Sturdy, "Royal funding of the Parisian Académie royale des sciences during the 1690s" by Alice Stroup, "Specialist control: the Publications Committee of the Académie royale des sciences (Paris), 1700-1793" by James Edward McClellan... Thus we can write an article about French Academy of Sciences by making a summary of those sources. And now - are there any similar sources about organisation in question? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is getting nowhere but I wonder why since there should be no argument and this possibility of deletion should never have arisen. I would like to know first what Mr Spackman thinks he's up to? In fact, who is Mr Spackman and how is he in a position to cause this pointless furore? If he's so desperate for 'notability', simply go to the main Telesio-Galilei web page, click on the 2009 medal ceremonies feature and then click on the invitations item. You will see with no further problem that Telesio-Galilei is represented at the major Yalta conference mentioned, Telesio-Galilei's founder and preseident are listed amongst the co-chairmen (alongside a Nobel prize winner), and a number of its gold medals for 2009 are to be awarded at that meeting. Is this the situation of a non-serious scientific organisation? I think not! If you, Mr Spackman, feel this insufficient evidence of 'notability' then I have to say you must be following an agenda of your own of which I know nothing. Faithdd (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organisation is virtual. There are no secondary sources showing it exists beyond its website. For the same reasons, notability seems impossible to establish by the normal criteria of wikipedia. It seems to have been created by Francesco Fucilla and his cronies, who again have no notability in science. Wikipedia is not a mirror for fringe/pseudophysics websites. Francesco Fucilla seems to be connected with a company - steriwave.plc - which purports to be able to use an irretrievably flawed grand unified theory of physics to facilitate interstellar travel. Since he seems to have been the force behind the writing of the article, it's very hard to take it seriously, even with all the attempted name-dropping. Mathsci (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Faithdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is undoubtedly a WP:SPA sockpuppet/meatpuppet account and could be indefinitely blocked if this turns out to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely NO name dropping on my part. If you check out the link I have given, you will readily find that what I have said is true. If being linked with such a prestigious scientific event in Yalta is not sufficient for establishing notability of a genuine scientific organisation then, as I said previously, you must be following an agenda unknown to the remainder of us.
As for your remarks about 'sockpuppet/meatpuppet account', I have no idea what you mean. These are genuine points made by someone becoming more and more disillusioned with the reliability and fairness of Wikipedia itself. I do hope I'm proved wrong on this last point.Faithdd (talk)
Probably you need to read WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination for deletion was not made by me—see [6], —and I have not voted on it. I am quite relaxed about the article staying, if the organisation’s notability is established, or about its going if it’s not. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remain perfectly relaxed about the article staying, if the organisation’s notability is established, but it looks less and less likely that that will happen, given the time that its supporters have had to meet the rather minimalist notability guidelines. So I guess it is time for me to cast my vote.

Delete: no notability established through citatations of even marginally reputable third-party sources. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the only source that could arguibily pass WP:RS and show notability (the BBC article turns out to be apparently only for the area of Wales and written by a person that is related to this academy (Myron Evans, as commented by Mathsci) so it's not an independient third-party source (he's chairman and fellow of the academy and he received one of the awards of that ceremony)...
This academy needs way more independient coverage before it can pass WP:N. I suggest in good faith and good intentions that the authors talk to the academy members (if they know them) and try to coordinate efforts to get the academy to appear at sources that satisfy WP:RS' "independient third party sources" thing, and that they try again when that happens. Also, the authors will want to look at WP:ORG for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and all the explanations given there about how to pass WP:ORG. At this moment, the academy doesn't really qualify, so good luck for the next time when the academy has received more coverage and you can list it here to give it another try. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Media coverage in China and North America of The Telesio Galilei Academy award winner 2009

I looked up the last. Wonderful—that really does help. To quote from the link, on Jiang Chun-xuan’s gold medal award: “his greatest achievement lies in proof of Fermat’s last theorem.” If that is true then clearly you should add that fact to the article on Fermat’s last theorem. For some reason Mr. Jiang seems not to be mentioned there. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Webmaster6 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two links have colour pictures of Fancesco Fucilla, who funds the prizes and website and also edits the article and talk page. The only mention in the British press of anything connected with this academy is the proposal for an unaccredited Myron Evans University (MEU) when it was declared illegal by the Welsh assembly. [7] This virtual institution, now rebranded as the Maxwell-Einstein University [8], is affiliated with Fucilla's virtual organization. It is quite amazing what can be put on websites. Francesco Fucilla is professor of geoscience and the history and philosophy of science at this private unaccredited and possibly non-existent university which grants Ph.D.'s apparently. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (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.
More