Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matteo Carandini

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 of the debate was no consensus. Although many votes were for delete, the nominator withdrew the nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matteo Carandini

Vanity page, non-notable neuroscientist. DeleteThis person has a record of publication that is comaprable to anybody at his stage in his career, none of the pubs appear to be from his own laboratory, but rather work done as a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. Nrets 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep Upon further reflection, this person is as notable as many others that are allowed to remain on WP, the bar seems pretty low. He does have some articles as a principal investigator (which come up in a medline search) in top scientific journals. While I still think he is not nearly as notable as many other Neuroscientists who are not in WP, I guess this is not a good reason to delete him, although the arguments for keeping him are pretty weak as well. So I have changed my vote. That being said there is very little in the article to reflect his notability, and perhaps the article could be improved to show why he is more notable than the avrage assistant professor. Nrets 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He might be notable enough, but the article needs major expanding to get up to snuff.--Vercalos 04:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable academic. Not everyone who's had a job is notable. Makemi 04:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNeutral. not very notable for Wikipedia, though Monicasdude brings up some points. Deckiller 05:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion or evidence of notability. dbtfz^talk 08:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, obviously notable, extensive record of publishing scholarly work, scores of Google Scholar hits. Today's most flagrant display of aggressive ignorance by irresponsible editors. Monicasdude 15:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of insulting Wikipedians who disagree with you, why not change their minds by adding evidence of notability to the article itself? dbtfz^talk 18:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Because the already listed credentials and bibliography are sufficient, and should be seen as sufficient. As for civility, too many AfD discussions, especially about academics and writers, are just cesspools of derogatory comments about subjects and authors of articles that are labelled, often incorrectly, as "vanity" (even though the relevant policy is quite specific that "vanity" is not a grounds for deletion). The obsession with deleting non-celebrity biographies is extremely damaging to Wikipedia and to its reputation. The same editors turn up, over and over, in these discussions, sometimes even admitting they don't read the articles they vote on. If you look through the discussions and see how the misbehavior is unchanging, you'd come to the conclusion that "aggressive ignorance" and "irresponsible" are relatively mild, and entirely accurate, comments. Monicasdude 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Nothing in the article itself indicates that the subject is anything more than a run-of-the-mill academic. Incidentally, my name got over twice as many hits on Google scholar, and I am absolutely certain that I am non-notable. (I am a graduate student with a few minor publications and a fairly uncommon name.) dbtfz^talk 21:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just to second that, the subject of this article does not have any publications as an independent investigator. If you look at his publication record you will see that he is never the last author. In scientific publications the last author is the principal investigator in a study, the first is the one that does the actual lab work, and this could be a graduate student or postdoc. The subject of this article does not have any more publications that the average Assistant Professor and is not notable within his field. I'm not saying he's not talented or smart, just not notable enough to merit an article. So no, this is not aggressive ingnorance, but an informed choice by someone who is in the same field. Nrets 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Sound advice above. Also, see WP:CIVIL, when you have a chance. PJM 19:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 16:07, 6 March 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.