Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Tonti


 * 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 no consensus. There obviously is no clear consensus either way, with good policy-based !votes on both sides. No prejudice to a renomination after, say, 6 months. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Enzo Tonti

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable academic. Although the citation count on Google Scholar is quite high, it's hard to ascertain what the quality of those citations are, or how germane his work is to the articles. Straight Google search for Tonti doesn't reveal much evidence of notability. Article for "Tonti Diagrams" was already deleted for being awful self promotion. (Articles_for_deletion/Tonti_diagram) Definitely has the aroma of WP:FRINGE although it may be notable fringe. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Can someone translate The reason for the existence of analogies is limited, for now, to the classical and relativistic theories of the macrocosm into any language that actually makes sense? I'm tempted to say the text deserves WP:TNT, and the notability case is not looking great (a Google Scholar h-index in the low 20's for engineering/physics seems to be where we get into an iffy zone, in my experience). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am a PhD physicist, and no, I cannot translate that. PianoDan (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 *  Keep he is the only contributor to his 9 highest cited works listed on Google Scholar here so it seems obvious that he is the main contributor and calls into doubt the entire rationale of the nominator. He passes WP:PROF witn nine works cited over 100 with the highest being 277 so there is no need for deletion in my view. There is no evidence the article is an autobio so that is another dodgy assertion, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and the dubiousness of the wiki-notability case to begin with. Apart from a stub-sized section of biographical material, the content is incomprehensible and overblown. The citation record does not actually stand out as above average for the relevant field. The article was created by a single-purpose account, lending credence to the idea that it was the work of a friend/employee/fan. In short, the page is broken, there's no driving need to fix it, and doing so would be a waste of volunteer time. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * TNT and SPA are not policy based deletion reasons Atlantic306 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A call for blowing up an article is grounded in policy when the reason to do so is that it is irreparably promotional, like the unclear-yet-grandiose claims which make up the majority of the content here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Probably notable. The papers are cited frequently and from a large range of authors, and there are independent publications talking about Tonti diagrams, but the current article is a mess. --mfb (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Keep This article has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE: there are scientific works on regular and well recognized journals, a notable number of citations and info useful to readers. IMHO there's no need for deletion. BJohn24 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — BJohn24 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak delete: The citation figures are actually not so great for the relevant disciplines in computational physics, modeling, and mathematical physics. Not enough citations/review material for WP:NACADEMIC#1 in my opinion (although this is not an obvious one and others may view this differently), and no indication of satisfying the other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BASIC. — MarkH21talk 12:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There are some of his works listed here, including articles and books - but that's no more than you can provide for thousands of academics that don't have wikipedia pages. There's no independent RS here talking about his contributions to his field, no references to major roles he has had in organisations, prestigious positions, he's got no awards here, no interviews, no coverage in mass media or industry journals. Simply writing 5 articles that have been cited 200 times each isn't a sole reason for notability to grant a wiki page. UNless more can be provided, it falls short of WP:NACADEMIC Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This diff on the german wiki might provide some context - I'm not sure if it's similar enough to say one way or the other but the edits made by "ProfEnzoTonti" there do look similar to the edits made on this page. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 05:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ok, it could be that he is writing on his own page, a violation of WP:COI? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply does not meet WP:GNG. Everything about this individual can be viewed on a primary source, with no coverage elsewhere. Therefore, insufficiently notable to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.Such-change47 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment is correct. Thaks for pointing out my error. GNG is indeed completely seperate to WP:PROF, which this does not also satisfy IMO. I do not see significant impact in this person's scholarly discipline, any significant awards, etc. Such-change47 (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. not meeting GNG is irrelevant; WP:PROF is an independent guideline, tho e people meet both. WP:PROf's basic requirement is influenti al in the field, and the extent to which one is cited is one of the measures of influence. I'm not voting! keep, because a highly promotional  article is enough reason to delete. --it violates one of the basic policies at WP:NOT, Being free from self-advertising is much more  important than just where we draw the boundary of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Keep despite the promotionalism . I changed my !vote to emphasise that impact on a scholars discipline is usually measured by citations--the other factors such as awards are mostly shortcuts, because anyone with such awards or named professorships invariably has enough citations that there is  no point in looking. Mathematical physics is not a very  high citation field, like experimental biology. Even in biomedicine, the highest citation field of all,  we have always accepted 2 papers with over 200 cites as sufficient. In his case there's the additional influence of having a standard method of analysis named after him.     Asking for major awards in addition is changing the meaning of notable to mean famous, equivalent to changing the definition for authors to winning at least a Pulitzer. In most European universities, full professor is the highest possible rank.  Promotionalism is indeed an important factor, but I can and will write the article to remove it. If I were not prepared to rewrite it myself, I would have been hesitant to !vote keep,, because that would be putting the burden on other people.   DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As we learned last time, "Tonti diagrams" are neither widely used nor always called "Tonti diagrams". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would appear that he probably held an established chair at the University of Trieste, which satisfies WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I could only find statements that he held a full professorship, which is a lower level of recognition than a named chair or distinguished professorship. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're looking at it from an American point of view. The guideline actually says: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Like Europe, or in fact most of the world outside America, where very few chairs are named and distinguished professor appointments rarely exist. An established (as opposed to personal) chair is generally equivalent in prestige. It appears he did hold an established chair, as he moved to Trieste to take it up (personal chairs usually involve promotion from a lower rank within the same university). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, different countries have different practices, but without more detail, saying that his position is equivalent to a named chair/distinguished professor/University Professor/Chancellor's Professor/etc. is too shaky an inference for me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * XOR&#39;easter is correct, his information says he was only made a professor, which is generally a lesser position to a chair position - a chair position being a particularly distinguished professor lecturing/researching in the area. Simply being a professor doesn't qualify you as notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All professors hold a chair. But there are two types of chair. An established chair is a post that always exists and to which another individual is appointed when the previous incumbent leaves. A personal chair is merely a promotion of an academic below the rank of professor to professor for reasons of personal merit. For instance, in a university history department there may be several people described as a professor of (or in) history (personal chairs), but often only one who is the professor of history (established chair). Outside the USA, these established chairs are very often not "named", but that does not make them any less prestigious, hence the "equivalent" clause in NPROF #5. Usually, when an academic (professor or not) at one university moves to a chair at another university, as Tonti did, then they have moved on appointment to an established chair, as personal chairs are usually conferred on promotion within the same university (often to academics who have been there for years, but for whom there is no established chair available). If we only accept named chairs as evidence of meeting NPROF #5 then we are in danger of making NPROF very Americanocentric, as this naming of established chairs, so common in the USA, is not generally common practice elsewhere. As to the distinguished professor, etc, appointments, these too are generally confined to the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been said, the position of chair is an American concept, and actually not relevant here.... because he's not American. Outside America, we don't have chair positions. In my country, we have Professors, and Associate professors and adjunct professors..that's it. He is a professor, and being a professor (in itself) is not a guarantor of notability and doesn't qualify you for a wikipedia page.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Outside America, we don't have chair positions." Yes we do! I'm not American and what I said above was not referring to America. All full professors hold a chair, either established (named or otherwise) or personal. It's not an American concept at all. It was invented in Europe in the Middle Ages long before any university was established in America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, essentially per . He has a respectable number of citations, but in a very high citation field, so I don't think this is a sign of the kind of impact we're looking for.  No sign of other NPROF criteria, in particular I do not see any sign that his position was the kind of thing that WP:NPROF C5 refers to.  I also did not find reviews of his book for a possible combined WP:NAUTHOR case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on GS this is a borderline case but with no additional recognition, awards etc I initially agreed with -- however it seems that in the literature "Tonti diagrams" are an established and independently documented approach   which would support the impact he had. Together with a decent number of citations and highly-cited papers I suggest to keep. --hroest 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No sufficient impact in his discipline. I don't think his contributions belong to theoretical physics, mathematical physics, or foundational physics because almost all of his scientific work (papers and books) is published in engineering journals. His citations records are not distinguished for a scientist working in engineering science. In my opinion, this is the main reason why his foundational research was not recognized by the community, because he was publishing in not-related journals and the mathphys community never heard (and scientifically judged) his work. --SimoneD89 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The citation numbers and (more strongly) papers by others specifically about his work with his name in their titles     show that despite targeting an odd collection of journals for what he did, he did end up making an impact. Incidentally, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics at least is not an obscure journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing special here. No indication of notability. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per Headbomb and SimoneD89. It's sad to delete biographical articles, but there are no explicit claims of notability, nor do the listed articles hint at anything special. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Per WP:PROF. I don't think I would call the article promotional, but it is borderline notable and there doesn't seem to be much consensus. bop34 • talk • contribs 03:25, 11 January 2022 (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.