Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corrado Malanga


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrado Malanga

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject fails the relevant notability criteria, specifically WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I have looked for independent, reliable, English-language sources that would establish notability, and found none. Yilloslime (t) 06:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question So are there any non-English sources? Remember that sources don't have to be in English. --Crusio (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are about 5x as many Ghits if you don't filter out non-English sources. Looking at the first few pages of results, none of them look any more reliable or independent than the English sources, but I don't speak Italian so I can't be 100% sure. And while I agree that the sources don't have to be in English, as this is en.wiki, English sources would be preferable. And what's notable and relevant to one audience (say Italians) isn't necessarily notable and relevant to another (say English speakers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)


 * Keep First, with respect to the chemistry: According to Web of science, 51 Published papers, many is top-quality journals (eg. Tetrahedron Letters)  highest cites 70, 39, 39, 33, 32. I added some basic external links. This is a respectable, although not brilliant record.  However, he is a Senior Researcher, not a professor, and teaches only elementary courses. I suspect (and hope) that he is somewhat of an embarrassment to the department. As a ufologist, it's much harder to tell what counts as notable, but I think he probably qualifies also. My own personal view is that the bios of genuine scientists with his sort of extreme ufological views are fortunately rare, but generally notable. Wikipedia should be providing a neutral record of these anomalies of human psychology.I added some basic external links and cleaned up the chem section a little.  DGG (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:PROF, simply having published papers in well respected journals is does [not] establish sufficient notability for inclusion. If that were the standard, just about every single chemist with a PhD would be worthy of inclusion. And while interesting, there is no criterion by which to judge the number of cites certain papers of his get--It may be that 70 other chemist thought his one paper was important enough to cite, or it may be that he's cited that paper in every subsequent paper he's written. Many researchers always cite their previous work, thereby inflating there citation count. And on how many of those 54 papers--and 54 papers isn't really all that many for an academic chemist; and Tet Lett is not the paragon of synthesis journals--on how many of those papers was he the first author or the corresponding author? We don't know, and that's why number of papers published and number of citations to those papers is not a criteria in WP:PROF. Yilloslime (t) 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I inserted "not" in your comment above, which I think was your intention. yes, it's not just having papers, but the number of papers, where they are published, how much they are cited, and who cites them. This is the way the influence and importance of a scientist is measured. The only question is whether in this particular field of chemistry this is borderline or not. As he only wrote 51 papers, there is no possible way for him to have cited one of them in 70 papers. But, just to set this at rest, i went back to Web of Science  and found that only 3 of them seem to be. For an example in a similar field where I think the number of publications and citation mights be marginal, see Articles for deletion/Malcolm Hooper. DGG (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello I am Italian and here in Italy there is a violent argument "firestorming" on Corrado Malanga. What you wrote above is more or less correct. I would just underline that he is the "supremo" researcher in alien abduction. I mean world leader. Unfortunately he wrote almost all of his works on alien interferences in Italian. As far as I know he is the only researcher in the phenomenon who was able not only to propose an explanation of it, but also to propound a "cure" (the SIMBAD) performed simply via meditation: the SIMBAD is just a sort of "scientific" self-induced exorcism for the alleged abductees, and for the other (not-abducted) people is only a meditation "methodology". He succeded where John Mack failed, that's the important thing about his ufologic study. Moreover he established a "canon" of the most common alien races that the alleged abductees describe, and he developed a classification of these alleged alien interferences. Therefore for the first time there is a wide study on the phenomenon that answers these questions:
 * Who are the alleged abductors
 * What is their alleged purposes
 * How the alleged abductors can perpetrate these alleged abduction without almost being "beheld" (except from the alleged abductee)
 * Why a person is abducted
 * How an alleged abductee can protect self successfully against these alleged interferences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.135.204 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles need reliable sources to establish notability. --Peephole (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete His academic achievements as a chemist do not impress me enough to feel that he passes WP:PROF. A good number of papers but very moderate citation counts. The articles in La Stampa and Il Giornale contribute to notability, but just 2 short articles doesn't reaaly mean that he satisfies WP:N or WP:FRINGE either. I just removed a few "sources" from the article (one a dead link, the others were links to online bulletin boards, not directly reliable sources...) --Crusio (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, having a fairly low citation impact. Not enough independent news coverage to quality under WP:BIO, but some coverage nevertheless.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (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.