Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Strumia


 * 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. Consensus is that the topic meets NPROF, although the view is certainly not unanimous. This transcends the ONEEVENT concerns held by several. The Washington Post opinion piece is just that, and not canvassing, and no weight regarding keeping or deleting was given to it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Alessandro Strumia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability. The article consist solely of description of the recent controversy, which is in itself minor and probably not worth keeping on Wikipedia Openlydialectic (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I boldly copied the well sourced info about the Cern controversy and created a Wikinews story: https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Cern_scientist_suspended_after_controversial_presentation Copyediting welcome, I don't have much experience wirh Wikinews! Gray62 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Turns out this hasn't been a good idea. License compatibility issues prevent the use of Wikipedia content for Wikinews. Can you imagine the idiocy? Wikinews is doomed, sadly. Gray62 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you attribute it to this article? I wouldn't have thought much more was needed. In any case, why not ask our very own User:Pi zero here ;)  save polluting your feet once again at Wikinews.  —5 4 1 29 18:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , Wikinews is licensed under CC-BY-2.5, wikipedia under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The SA part is important, means derivatives of wikipedia content needs to be shared under the same or similar license. Gray62 cannot license the CC-BY-SA-3.0 content under another incompatible non-SA license; thus issue with copyright. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, Galobtter. Well, if I was especially interested in the issue, I would invest further efforts, 54129. But I'm not. I just thought it would be only reasonable to recycle the well sourced content at Wikinews, but the license madness prevents that, even though that site is suffering under a lack of content. But that has to be discussed there, not here. I, for one, am frustrated now and won't waste any more time on it. Gray62 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly, : That is the fundamental problem with taking poorly thought out projects of JW et al from the drawing board to reality with nothing but a mop-down and a thin hope to hang them on. Hey ho: thus goes the way of all things. —5 4 1 29 18:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has been hijacked by the controversy (overnight since I stubbed it) but I believe him to be a notable physicist, a professor working on high energy physics at CERN with numerous scientific publications to his name. The controversy section should be shortened and form only a section in a longer biography and shouldn't prevent us recognising his wider notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me pls, but the article's history proves that this stub hasn't been hijacked by anyone else and that it was you who added all the stuff about a minor event, instead of providing biographical info! I'm honestly disturbed that you dare to lie into our (virtual) faces and only glad that out of lazyness I didn't vote for you getting adminship. Shame on you! Note: I will bring this to the attention of your sponsors. Gray62 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ,uhhhhhh what exactly are you talking about? Philafrenzy's last edit had the article in this state, other people added the stuff about the controversy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, shame on me! I must have misclicked when checking history. Horrible mistake. Philafrenzy, pls accept my sincere, heartfelt apology. I'm awfully sorry! Gray62 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * perhaps strike your remarks at 's talk, then....? —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 11:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I already did, but thx for the reminder.Gray62 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Strumia works in a different field of Particle Physics as I have, so I am not really in a position to comment on his notability as a peer. But it is very normal to be involved in a large number of publications at this stage of one's career, even for someone quite mediocre. I have created the Q-Item for Strumia and linked him to the handful of articles that he co-authored and that we have in the database, and found that he was first author or only one, which pertained to publimetrics rather than physics per se; this does not prove he is an negligible quantity, but does not prove his notoriety either. To nuance what Philafrenzy said, the Wikipedia article has never been hijacked by the controversy, it was created in response to it. That Strumia escaped notice until now could be due to his field being highly technical; it could also be due to his expert contributions at furthering physics being less notable than his inept attempts at reinventing sociology. If the former is true, we should see more on his career, but that has not happened for the moment; absent convincing discussions on his contributions to Particle physics, we should consider him to be one of the very numerous people whose collective work nurtures the CERN. Rama (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course the controversy drew my attention to him, but that doesn't make him less notable as a scholar. I don't care if the controversy is just one line in the article. It's his physics we should write about and based on the citations he probably qualifies for an article on that score. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * After my false accusations against you (egg on my face!), I really don't want to raise another stink, but pls consider this question: Since you started this stub, shouldn't you have already checked the notability question and have the necessary infos ready to be added to the article? Gray62 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course his notability as a scholar is independent of the scandal brought upon him by his display of dudebrodery. But what is his scholarly notability, really? He seems known mostly for non-conformist theories ("faster than light"...) and meta-scientific comments on bibliometrics; these do not prove he is a quack, but they are usually not a good sign and certainly no proof of notability. Especially with the sexist nature of the controversy, the contrast is striking with Donna Strickland, who had to achieve a Nobel Prize for Wikipedia to take notice. Rama (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. While the article does seem to be 90% focused on WP:ONEEVENT controversy, he may pass WP:NPROF. His Google Scholar profile shows many citations, through his work is co-authored, and it is far from my field of sociology, so I am not sure what are the citation standards/etc. in that field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete : Per Rama and Piotrus. It's totally obvious that this stub doesn't even try to start an encyclopedic article about Strumia, but is focussed on one minor recent event at Cern. No other issue is covered in the text, no biographical points at all. The intention of Philafrenzy seems to be clear to me, even though he tries to hide it by omitting summaries (sth that had been criticized in his recent, failed RfA, too, and that he promised to avoid!) . I usually don't take part in AfDs, so I'm not familiar with all the rules, but after checking WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NPROF and taking Rama's analysis of notability into account, imho this entry should be deleted. Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that someone who felt competent for adminship dares to create such a manipulative and fraudulent stub. Does he need to be reminded that “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist“? Gray62 (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What? I didn't write any of that Gray. Check the history. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was my lousy mistake, I must have misclicked when comparing versions. Pls accept my sincere apology! Gray62 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Taking a fresh look at the article, I see great improvement. Notability has been established, w/ good sources. Imho it's ok now. Gray62 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The professor is very notable, partly as a result of CERN censoring his views rather than seeking to disprove them. The media is currently full of material about him. When, yesterday (01/10/2018), I wanted to find out about this man I came to Wikipedia, but there was no article: that says it all. You come to WP to find out about a notable person such as this. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If Strumia is notable, per Wikipedia guidelines, the article should at least try to prove it. But it doesn't, it only covers the minor event at Cern. Per guidelines, that ain't good enough as reason for an article about Strumia. That's the problem.Gray62 (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How about you add some material about him. There's loads out there, leaving aside the recently controversy. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How about you do that, since you claim you found loads of infos? Gray62 (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one complaining about it; you are! 5.81.164.16 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Without biographical info and proof of notability, this article will be deleted. Not a problem for me. Is it one for you? Gray62 (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Strumia is a physicist who gave a single pseudoscientific presentation on gender, misleading the event organisers, flouting rules of the event hosts, violating the code of conduct of his funding body and deliberately insulting his audience. It would have been strange if he were not suspended. The event may have been newsworthy at the time, but it doesn't make the individual notable (WP:ONEEVENT). It certainly doesn't warrant a detailed outline of the talk, or a bio presenting him as if these ideas are of scientific merit. Sometimes scientists make incompetent and unfortunate forays into topics well outside their expertise. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document these. If this event has repercussions beyond one news cycle and the repercussions for one individual, I would support a page on the event itself provided it accords with WP:FRINGE. Bobathon71 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NPROF easily, though article certainly needs work. There's coverage and in italian of his research; Per Scientific American he's a notable proponent of an unorthodox theory in particle physics. There's a paragraph in The New York Times on his research. All demonstrating WP:PROF Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The press coverage from before the controversy is fine, but a bit thin: he's quoted briefly, or named as one of multiple collaborators. So, it's not nothing, but it only goes so far. His citation profile is good: multiple strongly-cited papers, even discounting those from big collaborations where it's hard to discern what exactly his contribution might have been. I think we have a net pass off WP:PROF. The recent dust-up after his speech will, I expect, fade into the background. (The reliable sources have come, written their pieces and gone.) It matters enough to be described, but not, I think, at much greater length than the article currently does. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY - looks like several people have chipped in to help expand the article to show there's more than just the one-off news event. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not obvious that it is a net pass off WP:PROF. Can someone spell it out clearly? I mean... don't forget that some Nobel Prize winner's page has been deleted on that ground. Just sayin' Egaudrain (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whose? ——SerialNumber  54129  08:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably a reference to this. Bobathon71 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. So,, a Noble Prize winner didn't have her article deleted did she? Just sayin'. ——  SerialNumber  54129  05:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. My bad. Yet, concerning Strumia's page, I don't see anybody justifying how he passes WP:PROF. Not disputing that he might, but I only see people saying "I know his work, and he passes", without a clear, reliable source supporting it. Can someone spell out the criterion number that is selected. If it is publications, can people from that field give us some baseline reference so that his publication record can be evaluated. If there's any other criterion (like being a Fellow of a learned society), can someone spell it and provide a reference? Egaudrain (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The story of Strickland's page remains relevant to this discussion: Bobathon71 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Apart from the controversy, he seems to pass WP:PROF. The controversy itself is part of a wider controversy that is purely political and is at odds with the actual science. For that reason, the controversy has legs, and will retain some notability for a long time. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A credited co-author on the Higgs boson paper, which is one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in our generation, but Delete the section about the 'incident at CERN', because it's not encyclopedic. If gender discrimination was in Strumia's field, there would be a much stronger argument for cataloging it for eternity. As is, this specific section has no bearing on the scientist and comes off as WP:SOAP in light of MeToo @SmithAndTeam (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, one of fifteen pages of co-authors on that paper. By itself, that doesn't count for much. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems to meet WP:PROF; a Senior Researcher at the National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics with a multitude of publications. The recent incident seems unduly heavy in his entry, however. ExRat (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Being in Strumia's field, he's a very notable researcher, probably among the top ten worldwide in high energy particle physics phenomenology beyond the standard model. Notice that in this field of research the author order is alphabetic. His collaborators Gian Giudice, Riccardo Rattazzi, Riccardo Barbieri of comparable scientific standing all have Wikipedia pages. PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 4 October 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets NPROF. But the recent news about him is given a disproportionate amount of weight at the moment, needs to be pared down. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep But amend to be more civil and reflect neutrality about the controversy.  The HEP community has just issued a statement  decrying the opinion of Strumia and affirming a commitment to fairness and equality within the sciences.  I too have spoken out, in my talks at Physics conferences, about the need to assure fair treatment of academics that keeps the endeavor collegial.  Still, there is a sense in academia today that with frequent budget cuts everybody is expendable, and one must be ruthlessly competitive to survive, which might explain but not excuse such behavior.  However; the controversy is not the main reason to keep this entry, but rather the man's notability as a scientist is sufficient.  Even the "Particles for Justice" statement calls him well-known, shows respect for the man's accomplishments, and avoids dishing dirt.  If the public looks to Wikipedia to inform them, we must do that impartially.  JonathanD (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strumia does not meet the Academic Guidelines for Notability, although he is most definitely notorious. And, it's most certainly the case that in Academia, notoriety does not necessarily equate with notability -- unless we are talking about Galileo challenging the accepted notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and saying that the earth revolves around the sun. This made Galileo both notorious and notable, because he was correct. Strumia's situation is not equivalent.I also note that the reference to Strumia being a "hotshot" in physics, was, in my view, an inappropriate quote from one of three women scientists interviewed for a BBC article. Neither the physicist NOR the biophysicist described Strumia as a hotshot, but rather the cell biologist. And, frankly, how could she know this -- it's not her field. While I am not a particle physicist, I have many friends and colleagues who ARE in particle physics. They publish papers with dozens of authors, and very few of them, other than major team leaders have had Wikipedia pages created for them.Carries mum (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the "hot shot" statement. First, it was a misquote: the original said "big-shot professional". (In my own sense of English idioms, that means something significantly different. A "big shot" is older and established, while a "hot shot" is an up-and-coming newer arrival.) It's also a remark that is out of place in an academic biography. The tone is wrong, and it conveys no useful information. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Coincidentally with the creation of the article, WikiProject Women in Red is holding a meetup to create missing articles for Women in STEM StrayBolt (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's hope the Women in Red who become Women in Blue are actually notable and are not just academics. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and close this Afd per WP:SNOW. He is one of the key contributors to the field of particle physics. Having an h-index of 82 and more than 41k citations clearly makes him notable as a highly cited academic (compare it to the recent Nobel prize winner Donna Strickland with 9k citations, half of which come from her only 2 papers with over 1k citations that both go back to 1980s when she was a PhD student working under Gérard Mourou, the other Nobel prize winner!) ${\color{Blue}{\mathbb{p\mathbf{\hbar}ysicsch}}}$ ${\color{Blue} {\mathbf{\ddot\smile}}}$ |undefined 00:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He is one of over 5000 authors on the Higgs boson paper, accounting for a third of his citation count. He has only 3 papers over 1k citations. Strickland and Mourou are the only authors of their paper and share the Nobel, which is a trailing indicator like for the Higgs. It is not recommended to compare citation counts across fields. Criteria for "highly cited academic" includes cautions about using Google Scholar and h-index. StrayBolt (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * NOTE to closer. There has been plenty of attempted canvassing, e.g. in The Washington Post -  w umbolo   ^^^  14:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Is that canvassing in any meaningful sense? It basically just says that this page exists. It doesn't tell readers to come here and participate; in general, it doesn't make participating in Wikipedia sound very enjoyable at all. (It says that our article "contains scant third-party references to why his research is significant." As the editor who added some of those references, I'd tend to agree. That's what happens when the press covers a researcher as one member of a collaboration.) Anyway, we've been here for a week, and the consensus looks like a pass of WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be construed as canvassing, in that the author - a moaning feminist - implies that Strumia should not have an article. There's an undertone of "get over to Wikipedia and vote to delete it". 5.81.164.16 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if you're fantasising rather than reading. None of that is in the article. Bobathon71 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it again just now to be sure, and I still don't see "canvassing" going on. The piece doesn't even make clear what is necessary to become a Wikipedia editor, and &mdash; to get nitpicky &mdash; it says there's "a lively debate", not a vote, so it doesn't really suggest that force of numbers would prevail. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article's lede may fail to point promptly enough to its subject notability, but the entry fulfills all the BLP's necessary WP:N. The nature of the controversy and its coverage are both significant. The scholar's publication record also validates its inclusion in WP.Den... (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. From my reading of it, it seems he’s more “notable” for controversy than his actual scientific work.Trillfendi (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2018 (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.