Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Scafetta

:{{la|Nicola Scafetta}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Scafetta}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Nicola Scafetta}})

Subject does not meet notability requirements for academics. His primary claims to notability appear to be that one writer mentioned him (in Italian) as possible Nobel Prize material, plus some mentions in some blogs, which are not considered not reliable sources. Independent, reliable coverage of Scafetts is scant at best and non-existent at worst. Contested PROD; original author became quite contentious, saying notability guidelines shouldn't apply because Scafetta is young and the guideline favors older academics - maybe that's because they've accomplished more? See the talk page for the full, long-winded discussion. I anticipate this AfD will become contentious because of Scafetta's views on global warming (which I generally agree with), but my nomination for deletion has nothing to do with his stand, and everything to do with the lack of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:Strong keep. Scafetta is young, but I would say Scafetta’s development of Diffusion Entropy Analysis meets criterion 1 in the academic notability guideline. Diffusion Entropy Analysis is a statistical tool Scafetta developed to study complex systems and he has published in a wide variety of academic disciplines. To publish in so many different disciplines is extremely rare. Now many other researchers have published using this same tool Scafetta developed. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=diffusion+entropy+analysis&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en] And textbooks are using his statistical method.[http://www.amazon.com/phrase/diffusion-entropy-analysis] Even if you disagree with this point, Scafetta is still notable. The guideline for notability of academics is found at Wikipedia:PROF. As the guideline itself points out, it is “best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply.” When determining if an exception applies, it is always best to put the interests of Wikipedia readers first and not to interpret the guideline too narrowly. I say At the foundation, an academic is notable if people want to read about him. Academics may also be notable under the general notability guideline found at Notability in Wikipedia which says "In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has received 'attention from the world at large' or has 'enduring notability', as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." So, the question is – are other people (credible journalists and scientists) writing about Scafetta? The answer is a resounding “Yes!” One Italian journalist has suggested Scafetta may win a future Nobel Prize in Physics for his introduction of a phenomenological theory of climate change. [http://www.ilgiornale.it/interni/se_terra_si_surriscalda_colpa_sole_luomo_non_centra/25-10-2009/articolo-id=393648-page=0-comments=1] Many important and widely read science blogs are writing about him. Climate Science, Roger A. Pielke's blog, has reported on Scafetta six times. Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That (readership at 3 million hits a month) reported on Scafetta four times. Other blogs covering Scafetta include Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre[http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/26/scafetta-and-west-2007/],Real Climate[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-sequel/], The Blackboard by Lucia Liljegren[http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/schwartz-scafetta-estimate-climate-time-scale/], Reference Frame by Lubos Motl[http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/scafetta-west-climate-phenomenology.html] and many others[http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/08/nicola-scafetta-on-influence-of-jovian.html][http://newsodrome.com/health_news/dr-nicola-scafetta-summarizes-why-the-anthropogenic-theory-proposed-by-the-ipcc-should-be-questioned-15466631][http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/08/total-solar-irradiance-recalculated-by-n-scafetta/][http://www.masterresource.org/2009/03/obama-climatomics-politics-amid-a-fading-alarm/][http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/never-mind.html][http://www.skepticalscience.com/ACRIM-vs-PMOD-the-rematch.html] People read about Scafetta's theory and research and want to know more about him. Wikipedia is the natural place for people to come. There is nothing Wikipedia will gain by deleting Scafetta’s article. Instead, I invite you to help make it better.RonCram (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::Realkyhick notes that I became contentious when he put the article up for deletion before it had a chance to develop. It is true that I was annoyed. His attempt to nominate the article for speedy deletion before it had a chance to develop is contrary to Wikipedia policy which specifically warns people to give an article time to develop. I have a full-time job. As a result, it takes me a while to research and write an article that is both informative and interesting. This article has improved since the first attempt to delete it but it can certainly be better and invite people to help me make it better. But there is no question Scafetta is notable.RonCram (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::As I have said in our discussion, the concept of "an academic is notable if people want to read about him" is impossible to determine independently and reliably, which is which we have these guidelines. RonCram basically wants us to bend notability requirements to suit his wishes, and trots out the old, tired concepts of "There is nothing Wikipedia will gain by deleting Scafetta’s article." He wanted us to give him 90 days to let the article "grow." Well, a WP article is not a plant, and such requests are often used by those who hope we'll forget about the article after a while and let it fall through the cracks. (I gave him more than a week, and he came up with nothing new. My own Google search came up with nothing else relevant, at least not in English.) If Scafetta meets notability requirements at a later time, we can always revisit the issue then through deletion review. But for now, no. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::If you do not like my phrasing, we can at least agree on the Wikipedia phrase - "In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has received 'attention from the world at large.'" For Scafetta, the answer clearly is "Yes!" Not only are the science blogs talking about him regularly, people are writing books using ideas he developed. Scafetta's notability could not be any more clear. RonCram (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::One specific problem: Do we have anyone independent of Scafetta that specifically says that he is the developer of Diffusion Entrophy Analysis? His paper with Gioglino (sp?) says so, but that's not independent, and the link to the story about teen pregnancy is behind a pay wall, so I can't verify it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

: delete per nom. Whilst I think the subject *is* probably notable I don't think the article or its sources establish that; the stuff about the Nobel prize is just silly and shows the level this article is currently at. Worst of all - no one cares: no-one is here William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

::William, if you agree Scafetta is notable, then work to make the article better - don't vote to delete it. It serves no one to delete the article. Scafetta will be featured in another important science blog or newspaper soon and people will want to know more about him. RonCram (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

::BTW, whether people care or not is best measured by the number of people to visit his page, not how many people vote here. I see now the AfD nomination was incomplete. Now that it is complete perhaps more people will show up.RonCram (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Sorry about the incomplete nom. Sometimes the Twinkle and Wiki software goofs up. I was wondering why there was such a lack of response. But Ron, notability is not measured by page views, nor should it be. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Tell William.RonCram (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: AFAIK I'm not on first name terms with you. As for the nom - it has been complete for a while now. still, no-one cares. That says a lot William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Come on, William, we have been on first name basis for years. There is no point in trying to be shy now. RonCram (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

:Strong keep. When the best argument so far for deleting admits notability, it's time to close the AfD and work on improving the article. TMLutas (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:: We await your improvements with eager anticipation William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. With all due respect, the idea that "an academic is notable if people want to read about him" is nonsense – we're all aware that this process is governed by well-established WP guidelines. That said, the subject clearly has quite a significant research record. WoS shows 45 publications with a citation list of 49, 47, 47, 34, .... (total cites approaching 500, h-index = 13), which I think is passable under WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC).
• Very Weak Keep. Citation statistics quoted by Agricola44 indicate marginal notability. Subject is nowhere near a Nobel Prize: wildly exaggerated by journalists. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep' notable by the GNG. I consider notability by WP:PROF marginal, with his citation record in a very intensively watched field. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep With nonessential/difficult to verify ("Perhaps he is best known....") content removed. --Dc987 (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2010 (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.