Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criminal creology


 * 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. despite support from an overflowing sock drawer. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Criminal creology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This appears to be an overly peacock-y non-notable science that was described in a phd thesis, then not referred to again until a french-lebanese journalist wrote two articles about the thesis. (Although I use the term "science" with hesitation, as there's no evidence to suggest that this is practiced by anyone other than the scholar who proposed the idea). Given that the notability guideline requires multiple, independent sources, I'm not sure this qualifies. I was unable to find any further sources: searches for "criminal creology" on google, google scholar, google news, and ISI all returned 0 searches aside from wikipedia. B figura (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete My search for sources also comes to nought. Fails general notability guideline. ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The best reason for notability seems to be that it might be the shortest pronounceable series of letters to have zero google hits on the web, books and journals. Smocking (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid this being called a WP:GHITS argument. I also tried to find if the two nontrivial sources in the article are published anywhere and they are not. Smocking (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside: this may be because the site in question doesn't maintain old enough archives (I google translated the arabic site, and tried to find the two sources mentioned). Of course, even if I could find those sources online, my concerns about notability would remain. -- B figura  (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Flunks WP:N, WP:NEO. THF (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I am Petra Hanna. First of all, Dr. Frangi's criminal creology is most interesting work. His research took me 8 months of study and analysis. Mr. Frangi has not completed his reasearch yet. He is involved in many other new sciences he is proposing, and I have commented on them. Second, the term "science" does not mean "practice" as one reader has put it. Science means "knowledge of". This is the meaning of the greek term "logos". Third, Time is not a sign of a low importance of the idea, only to answer he who mentions that since the time of his thesis we have not heard of it until the time I have commented about it. May I point out that Marx and Engels's Manifersto took 10 years to get through, and Einstein's Special Relativity took 30 years to get through. Although there is still controversy as to whetehr E=mc2 is his idea or De Pretto's idea who published it in 1903. Fourth, I ask you please to read him before judging. so simple is his idea that it can mislead the reader. If you are not being able to access his trext, I am ready to send it to you by mail (not by e-mail). my e-mail address is . Thank you Petrahanna (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Petrahanna (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  Keep I am a lebanese german. I do not thing there is any violation of your policy. I have read Mrs. Petra Hanna's comments on Dr. Frangi's Criminal Creology research, and other comments of hers on other research of Frangi. Most scientific and objective. She is certainly renown here in Lebanon. I have copies of her comments. I am ready to provide you with copies thereof. Just let me know. my e-mail address is: Laoun (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Laoun (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The reason "Mr./Ms. Bfigura" why "no one has heard about Dr.Frangi's Criminal Creology until the time a lebanese french has commented on it" is that Dr. Frangi started to publish his reasearch, including his Criminal Creology, in september 2007 in his own journal ("Journal of Legal Research"). And it was in December 2007 and January 2008 that Petra Hanna started to comment on Frangi's research. Mostreal (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Mostreal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Criminal Creology did not violate your policy. Petra Hanna is most reliable source. She is well respected scholar. Her comments on Frangi's research has made big news here. Bybliotheca (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Bybliotheca (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep We were colleagues Dr. Frangi and I, at Harvard Law School, between 1994 and 1997. I agree with all that has been written about Criminal Creology. Dr. Frangi had started to propose Criminal Creology in France at the age of 21-22. Frangi was particularly renown here at Harvard for his innovative ideas. He was working as full time researcher on his new type of democracy which he called "Democracy of History". It can be found at Harvard Law School Library. It is the first government in the history of thought based on "group", not community or individuals. This does not surprise me at all from Dr. Frangi. I know him personally. I am happy to hear that he has just started to publish his ideas. Iamamerican (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Iamamerican (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. For he who was against using the term "revolution" by the Criminal Creology page writer, I would say that I have read Dr. Frangi's research. I can assure you that it is a complete revolution in the history of criminal sciences. You see? Petra is not the only one. We are many now. "You may join us"! Phoalphabet (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Phoalphabet (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment There's nothing wrong with a theory taking decades to becoming accepted. As far as this encyclopedia is concerned, an entry is warranted after the topic has been extensively discussed. Mrs Hanna, you might want to read our policy on gaining support from colleagues or friends -- Even if it looks that way, this forum should not be a place to vote. --Pgallert (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I ask Mr./Ms/ smocking to ask "laoun" or "petra hanna" for copies of Dr. Frangi's research, if he or she is, for some reason, unable to find it. I ask them, then, to write an article about it showing objectively how criminal creology is not a revolution in the history of criminal sciences, instead of taking beforehand a negative attitude and "smocking" nonsense. Nicereply (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Nicereply (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment SPAs tagged and notaballot added, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, ouch comes to mind... – ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The author isn't the only one who knows a thing or two about scammers. The SPAs use of "Mr./Ms" or "Sirs/Madams", spurious quotation marks and grammatical errors (particularly leaving out articles) is remarkably similar to that of the article's creator (see ). It might just be common among Lebanese Germans, but it is quite a coincidence. The timing of the comments is also pretty typical of a puppeteer becoming careless; with one hour intervals at first and 10-minute intervals later. Perhaps an SPI is warranted? As for "there is still controversy as to whetehr E=mc2 is his idea or De Pretto's idea who published it in 1903."... comedy gold! Smocking (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Voila, the SPI is here. --Pgallert (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing whatsoever on web/scholar/books/news, and I've tried both the French and the English spelling. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like I just confirmed Favonian's assessment of the sources.  Hits for "creology" relate instead to a little used word for the study of creole languages.  This "theory" that calls itself a a revolutionary understanding of criminality that likens crime to creativity seems to be very much more of that sort of thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainthing (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Certainthing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. I give credit to Mrs. Hanna for what she is doing for science and knowledge's sake. Upon reading Dr. Frangi's research, it becomes clear to me where the revolutionary aspect of it is. Frangi shows in his 20-page introduction how all criminal sciences have been non-structural in their research, meaning that they have studied causes of crime outside the structure of human act itself. He shows also that this non-structural study would not allow understanding of crime because it would be subject to relativity of crime in space (what would be a crime in one state would not be so in another state), and in time (what would be a crime in one state at one time would not be so at another time). Thus, Dr. Frangi has called for moving our study from outside to inside the human act of crime as to avoid variability in our understanding of crime. As such, I say yes, Mrs. Hanna is absolutely right, what that 21-22 year old student was starting in his LLM paper is a true revolution in the history of criminal sciences. I give full credit to Mrs. Hanna. Thank you.

Truehannah (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Truehannah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Mr./Ms. Smerdis of tlon Dr. Frangi's criminal creology is not likening crime to creativity! God! This is totaly irresponsible. What are trying to do? Being smart or ignorant? Is it just a matter of an attitude? This how we bring scientific judgement on things? Just read his research. He is not joking with his life like you are doing! For God's sake!! where are you coming from?
 * Comment. The article currently says:  Criminal creology also studies how the development of creative activity may influence the development of the criminal personality components of the person dealing with creative activity. Thus, Frangi started his doctoral thesis with studying how the creative activity would influence the development of the creator's criminal personality components. Of course this does not mean that a person dealing with creative activity would be led to be criminal! This only means that the transgression and creative aspects of every human act have a specific value which should be taken into consideration when determining the criminal's responsibility. This also means that a legislative act, by the fact that it is a human act, has a creative and a transgressive elements within it,which should be taken into account when defining the criminal's responsibility. This means that the value of transgression within the legislative act should be subtracted from the quantity of blame imposing upon the criminal.  To the extent that this is coherent at all rather than patent nonsense, it seems to be positing some kind of vague relationship between crime and creativity, and that crimes have some kind of creative value to criminals.  It is a bit hard to follow, and would benefit from a rewrite in plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostreal (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Mr smocking! There is a entry in wikipedia, entitled "Einstein's E=mc2 is an Italian's idea". Please refer to it.
 * Response Where? I can find "Einstein's E=mc2 is an Italian's idea" referred to in Olinto De Pretto in a link to an article of that name in The Guardian, but there is no article on Wikipedia, so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * '''Quote: "Einstein's conception of mass-energy equivalence is dissimilar to de Pretto's, and Einstein's deduction of this equivalence from the theory of relativity bears no resemblance to de Pretto's (erroneous) reasoning" Peridon (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A reply to the sock gallery: The central issue here is whether criminal creology is notable as defined by our notability guideline, nothing more. In this case, that means determining whether multiple, independent reliable sources have discussed the subject in a non-trivial way. This does not appear to be the case, as only the articles by Petra Hanna have been found. Since this appears to be a theory advanced by a single scholar, this isn't surprising.


 * In general, Wikipedia does not care how important you think an idea is, as it is not anyones personal soapbox. Nor is it a platform to promote ideas which may become popular in the future. It's probably worth noting that many scholarly theories do not pass this bar, as Wikipedia does not host original or synthesized work.  And as an aside, if there is a "Einstein's E=mc2 is an Italian's idea", at a minimum, it needs to have a properly formatted title. --  B figura  (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete "May I point out that Marx and Engels's Manifersto [sic] took 10 years to get through, and Einstein's Special Relativity took 30 years to get through." May I point out that they wouldn't have had Wikipedia articles until they had reached compliance with Wikipedia's standards of notability. Please note: Wikipedia's definition of notability. May I also add to the comment somewhere above about socks, that this is a discussion, and that it is not a vote as such. We put keep or delete on our !voting (note spelling) purely for convenience - and do it only once. All else must be comments, responses, etc. For those that don't know, sockpuppets are multiple accounts used to influence (they think) !voting, or to cause disruption. Either can lead to blocking. Single purpose accounts are accorded little weight in these discussions unless they make a significant contribution. I can see little value in this article. Someone has written a thesis. Someone else has commented on it. It doesn't seem to have made any further headway. Maybe in five years (things go quicker nowadays....). Peridon (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Learn enough (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learn enough (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)  — Learn enough (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Keep. Mostreal's article on Frangi's criminal creology is able to command attention and respect. Mostreal is right and courageous enough to write it. I would like also to point out that Mrs. Hannah's commentaries on Frangi's research are, contrasting with other commentators, highly scientific, objective, balanced and unbiased, even though she is more likely to regard Frangi's research with favor.


 * Delete If in the future this term grows in usage then it will grow in sources. Until then it doesn't meet inclusion criteria, regardless of all these peoples sentiments about the subject and the creator. Beach drifter (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note, per the massage on this Afd's talk page, all socks in the drawer have been blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 22:32, 26 February 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.