Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiara Nappi

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiara Nappi

This is a page about a researcher, but it doesn't state what the outstanding importance of this researcher is to be included in an encyclopaedia; that is, it seems non-notable. IMHO we allow Chiara Nappi to be here, we would have to maintain a page about every research professor of every university in the world. If instead Chiara Nappi is an outstanding researcher of her field, we need more references declaring why and how it is so. Being the page as it is, I suspect it's vanity. --Cyclopia 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, she's an outstanding researcher. See, for example, http://www.onassis.gr/english/scholars/ite.php In my experience with Wikipedia articles about professors, the more one expands the article, the greater the evidence of notability, particularly at long-established and prestigious institutions. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In the link you gave me, the only reference to Prof.Nappi is "...while lectures were also given by distinguished Professors Igor Klebanov (Princeton University), Ioannis Bakas (University of Patras), Ashoke Sen (Harish Research Institute – Chandra), Elias Kiritsis (University of Crete), Kostas Skenderis (University of Amsterdam) and Chiara Nappi (Princeton University)". The outstanding character of Klebanov and Sen academic career (discoveries etc.) is well established in their articles: the curriculum of Nappi as read in the article seems to be that of a brilliant but not outstanding researcher. There is described she worked on this and that, but no outstanding advancement made by her is described. If there are, they should be added to the article (and the article kept). --Cyclopia 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"brilliant but not outstanding researcher" ???? so.. according to your parameters, only Einstein and a very few other scientists deserve to be on Wikipedia??? Then.. why don't we create a Wikipedia just for Nobel Prize winners? that would make things much easier.. wouldn't it? --J_mcandrews

If you can describe a well known (from the community) and important scientific discovery or theory that puts her above the average of her field, I'm fine. See comment from RJH below. And, oh, just one "?" is enough on a sentence, thanks. --Cyclopia 22:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

look at her new page.. and go doing some research yourself.. maybe one day you'll become a real scientist like Dr. Nappi.--J_mcandrews

I fear Prof.Witten must be seriously worried of your love for Prof.Nappi. Jokes apart, your additions to the article are useful (at least now it's more clear what are the research fields in which she works). However, I'm personally still not convinced: One of the major contributions of Dr. Nappi to modern astrophysics was the use of the Yang-Mills theory’s Yangian symmetry to D=4. - can you explain to people not in the field why is this a major contribution? ; Dr. Nappi was deeply involved in finding a relation between approaches to integrability in the Superconformal Yang-Mills theory - did she found this relation? why is simply working on this relation important (Thousands of researchers work on protein folding, a basic problem of molecular biology, but this doesn't make all of them notable.)? The same questions apply for the other contributions listed. The problem is that even I could write a page about myself and by carefully choosing words I can look at least as an important researcher as prof.Nappi. --Cyclopia 22:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You really need a good psychologist.. so to talk about your personal problems.. and the fact that you die of envy for those who, in their life, have succeeded, while you obviously haven't. Perhaps.. if you spent less time in front of a PC and more in a Lab doing some research, you too could become famous.. what do you say? BTW: today it's sunday.. you dont have friends to go out with? oh.. I see.. that's why you hate the whole world.. Go out, in the real life, and make some friends! Start living your Real life instead of a virtual one, in front of a PC.--J_mcandrews

Please stop personally harassing me. Read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I don't mind that much about it (it just makes me laugh to hear "get a life" from someone that spent the whole day editing the wikipedia page of an astrophysic professor), but it's bad for Wikipedia to have users personally harassing other users. It's a waste of time and energies (mostly yours). As for succeeding in my work, I'm pretty happy given my age and career, thanks. As for my real life (despite it shouldn't be your concern) I'm happy to tell you today I'm at home because in the two preceding days I had even a bit too much real life :D. (To other editors/admins: can I move this sadly useless flame to my/his talk page or it is considered part of the Afd discussion? thanks) --Cyclopia 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: the fact that you, "not in the field", might not understand in what proportion the scientists who worked on the Quantum theory, Relativity and the M theory singularly contributed to the creation of these cornerstones of modern physics, means that we must delete the pages of all those people?

A lot of people worked on these three fields. Many are notable; many more are not. There are surely borderline cases -the world is not black-or-white. If I go, for example, reading the page about Edward Witten is obvious to me why he's on our encyclopaedia, even if I'm not in the field. This is true for also other less known scientists. For prof.Nappi, this is far from being obvious instead (IMHO). That's why it should be extensively explained, if really she's that outstanding contributor to physics. --Cyclopia 23:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"I'm personally still not convinced".. and who cares? who are you to judge and censure a page? even more if you understand nothing about astrophysics.. why do you criticize? I am scared of people like you.. the day you are given a little bit of "power", you use it to feel powerful and destroy everything that you dont understand or that you feel might make you feel uncomfortable.. People like you are dangerous.. because you know that you "mean" nothing to the world and therefore, as soon as you get some power, you use it to destroy the others..just to feel a little bit important.--J_mcandrews

If I was like you describe, I would just have deleted the page. Instead I'm putting it on vote here, looking for an open discussion with my peers and to reach consensus. Now consensus is against my proposal, but I don't mind that much: I'm willing to accept the verdict of the community. It's you that are verbally assaulting me. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, they're official policies here. Thanks. --Cyclopia 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: the fact that you, "not in the field", might not understand why the Quantum theory or Relativity or the M theory are major contributions to physics means that we must delete those pages? --J_mcandrews

The importance of these contributions is well established and described. Those or Chiara Nappi seems not so well clear, instead. --Cyclopia 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. She is a (full) professor at a major research university (but she seems currently to be at Princeton University[1]) and has several well-cited papers, according to Google Scholar. One paper she has written with her husband Ed Witten and Gregory S. Adkins has an exceptional 1259 cites. up+l+and 07:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. According to WP:PROF (which is only a proposed guideline, but the best one we have so far), receiving "a notable award or honor" is considered a qualification for inclusion. As an example of that is mentioned "receiving full professorship at a prestigious university, or receiving a named professorship at a reputable university". Besides USC and Princeton, she has apparently had a position at the Institute for Advanced Study as well. up+l+and 14:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to know there is WP:PROF. I read it but still, it seems to me quite too much "all-inclusive" as a policy. I'd like if this case becomes a test for WP:PROF, it could be helpful regardless of the outcome.--Cyclopia 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Because she appears well-published. It would help if she had an accomplishment listed instead of just stuff on which she has worked. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments, subject passes WP:PROF test. Yamaguchi先生 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Cyclopia. You could make this kind of "Keep" argument for virtually every single university professor in America. The entire point of being a professor is that you get paid to do research into your specialty, which usually means that if you're any good you come up with new findings. This is only encyclopedia-worthy if your new findings have a great impact on society, not if you're just making a slight tweak to some theoretical framework. — GT 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you state clearly if your vote is delete (as it seems) or keep? By the way, I'd personally correct "great impact on society" with "great impact on science and/or society", IMHO. :) --Cyclopia 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I endorse deletion, but AfD is not a vote. — GT 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I know (the word "vote" was a quick abbreviation, sorry), but on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikietiquette section, you can find: Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e.g., "Keep" or "Delete" - just to help admins to better understand the discussion status, I think. Given your preceding comment I took the liberty to add "Delete" to your first comment; if you don't want it so please revert it. --Cyclopia 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a small thing I do when I participate in AfD's -- I like to encourage closing admins to read the entire discussion, and I consider the bolded keeps and deletes to be too tempting for the admin to simply count them and see who comes out on top. It should be about the strength of arguments, and the tally of "votes" is irrelevant. However it's not a big deal in this case and I won't revert your edit. — GT 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Dr. Nappi not only is a professor at the University of Southern California, but, most of all, she is a full professor at the most important and prestigious US university for scientific research: Princeton (!). Besides, she has worked on the string theory, publishing various articles and papers, with the most prominent scientist in the world on the M-theory: Dr. Edward Witten. No doubt about it: keep. --Mother.earth 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  Note - user's sixth edit, after wikifying a word or two in five other articles a few mins prior (see contribs). Possible sockpuppet. Incidentally none of those reasons speak to her individual notability as far as this encyclopedia is concerned. See WP:PROF. — GT 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, the user's edit pattern fits an enthusiastic newbie rather than a sockpuppet. Many edits creating new links, most of which were redundant.--Srleffler 05:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a full professor and having a modest research and publishing record is not sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, the proposal WP:PROF notwithstanding.--Srleffler 05:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dr. Nappi is a member of the very remarkable "Institute for Advanced Study". In order to be accepted by this institution, researchers must provide substantial academic papers and important research evidence. The Institute has been home to some of the most renowned thinkers in the world, among which Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, John von Neumann, Kurt Gödel to name just a few.The Institute for Advanced Study is designed to foster pure cutting-edge research and only outstanding researchers are admitted. Among them is Dr. Nappi. Ergo... Keep. --Selci 15:37, 11 August 2006

Can I ask you why you (or anyone posting with your IP) are putting false FUD comments about User:Srleffler and User:GT? Cyclopia 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What I did was just to underline, just like GT did with his note concerning Mother.earth's vote, that in my opinion, GT and Srleffler are fake identities.. They both have a short number of edits, they both have been posting on Wiki for a very few days.. that’s what I call a ‘smoking gun’ for fake IDs..And by the way: who benefits the most from negative votes if not you, Cyclopia, since you’ve been against Nappi’s page from day one? PS:Cyclopia:don’t you dare deleting my posts and critics.That’s against the netiquette. --Selci 22:14, 11 August 2006

You must come from a parallel universe. I checked again the contributions of User:Srleffler and User:GT. Both have more than 1000 contributions in the last months (do you call it a short number of edits for a very few days?), and they all look genuine contributions to me - for example, Srleffler often welcomes new users on their talk pages, why should a sockpuppet do it? There is nothing I see in their profiles hinting they can be sockpuppets. I won't comment the additional fact you're not even an English wikipedia user accusing other people of being sockpuppets... And, oh, I surely "dare" delete anonymous FUD poisoning a civilized discussion on an AfD -this was against the netiquette and the Wikiquette. I wouldn't ever have deleted anything either signed or well reasoned, no matter how against my proposal it can be. By the way, I don't "benefit" of negative "votes". I'm here to put a reasonable discussion on the table. --Cyclopia 22:08, 11 August 2006 (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.