Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Perono Cacciafoco


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Francesco Perono Cacciafoco

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although ostensibly about the person, the article is really pushing the Teoria della Conciliazione or New Convergence Theory, which lacks notability and was deleted last week on the Italian Wikipedia for that reason. http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:SecondoMontanarelli&prev=search Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Syncerely, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * DON'T DELETE As already told in the Talk Page, I think Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is worthy to be on Wikipedia, because his contribution to Historical Linguistics is relevant. He proposed, with the cooperation of Dr Guido Borghi (University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy), one of the most important Indo-Europeanists in Europe, and with Assoc. Prof. Andrea Nanetti (Nanyang Technological University - NTU, Singapore), well-known Italian Philologist, a new convergent Theory in Indo-European Linguistics, indeed the New Convergence Theory (NCT), in Italian Teoria della Concilizione (a literary translation could be 'Theory of Reconciliation' or 'Reconciliation Theory'). That Theory is quite relevant in the current panorama of Indo-European studies, because it tries to 'reconciliate' apparently irreconcilable approaches to the topic of Indo-European origins, the 'pan-Indo-European' (cf. the works of Dr Gianfranco Forni on Basque, for example) and the 'pan-Semitic' (by Dr Giovanni Semerano and his followers). His Theory is not a 'sudden invention' lacking of notability, but it is based on solid epistemological assumptions. Starting from a critical revision of the basic 'semantic' methodology of Dr Claudio Beretta about Toponymy (Historical Toponomastics) in world languages, it rigorously applies Historical Phonetics (and Historical Semantics) to the etymological / toponymic reconstruction. Reconstruction conducted with the contribution of other Sciences, as Historical Geography, Historical Topography, Historical Cartography, and Landscape Archaeology, in order to always scrupulously look for a connection and likeness between data from the 'pure' Etymology and data from the historical analysis of the developments of the territories contextual to the examined toponyms. Starting from here, from the exhaustive study of the most stable onomastic sources in Indo-European languages, the place names, the NCT can link between themselves not only the 'pan-Indo-European' and 'pan-Semitic' points of view, but also the divergent approaches and reconstructions by Prof. Marija Gimbutas (Kurgan hypothesis) and Prof. Colin Renfrew (Anatolian hypothesis), without denying the achievements of the Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm (Continuity Theory) by Prof. Mario Alinei and his School (allowing to recostruct, in this way, a lot of otherwise etymologically unexplicable prehistoric roots). The studies of Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco about the *alb- root (hydronymic remote root), e.g., have opened a new path in the dicothomy Indo-European / Semitic (with the innovative hypothesis of an Anatolian prehistoric contact and of a passage of this root from Akkadian - Semitic language - to Indo-European), inaugurating an epistemological pattern applicable also to the dicothomy Indo-European / pre-Indo-European (referred, for example, to his studies on the *borm- root, interpreted as pre-Indo-European, reused and refunctionalized in the Indo-European linguistic system). The NCT is really an all-embracing Theory, respectful of all the points of view, trying to take from them all the epistemological achievements without denying a priori a specific approach, attenuating the differences in order to go back as far as possible in the etymological reconstruction, until the remote (prehistoric) origins of Indo-European place names and of Indo-European languages. The New Convergence Theory (NCT) is a quite new achievement in Indo-European Linguistics, so it is impossible to claim a lot of papers about this topic or - already - lemmata in other Encyclopedias, but it is the most important and innovative Theory about Indo-European languages in this years, with the 'pan-Indoeuropean' approach, with the difference, in relationship with this one, to be not so 'extreme' and to try to provide a more all-embracing and multidisciplinary vision. It is also natural that a page on the figure, as a Scholar, of Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco cannot be separated from a short and simple overview about his Theory, because the two entities are together, the Scholar and his Theory. I cannot accept just one 'criticism'. The page I have written is absolutely not 'promotional' or 'advertising', no one wants "push" in any case the NCT, and it was not my intention at all to do this (in that case also Dr Perono Cacciafoco would have not allowed me to write that page). The NCT doesn't need to be 'pushed' in any place, because it is a 'fluid' and progressive Theory to be applied, in the etymological evaluation, on a case-by-case basis and it can be improved and developed at any time, according to the suggestions and to the contributions of the Scholars. The NCT is exactly this, an attempt to avoid 'extreme' positions in the study of Indo-European languages and Indo-European origins. So, nothing to do with the 'promotion' of a Theory, nothing to do with 'advertising'. This fact has not been understood, unfortunately, by the Italian Wikipedia Editors, who have immediately deleted the page without opening a discussion and without looking for documentation or asking information about the NCT. About Dr Perono Cacciafoco, his papers on the NCT - just a part of his works about Linguistics and Philology - have all appeared on peer-reviewed academic and scientific Journals by important Universities and academic Institutions, all with a specific focus on Linguistics and Historical Linguistics. The works on the NCT by Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco are well known especially in Italy, in Germany (Universität Leipzig), in the Central Europe Universities (Craiova, Timișoara, Niš, Sofia), and in Russia (Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg), and his paper on the *alb- root has been mentioned as an authoritative source also on the Russian Wikipedia, in the page about the Ligurian language (here the page / link, Лигурский язык (древний), cf. note n. 5). His work on the New Convergence Theory (NCT) has also been presented and welcomed with sharing by Linguists from all over the world at the XXV International Congress of Onomastic Sciences - the most authoritative academic international Conference on General Onomastics and Onomastics in Historical Linguistics - in Glasgow, on August 25-29, 2014, where, with Assoc. Prof. Andrea Nanetti (Nanyang Technological University - NTU, Singapore) and Arch. Dr Mario Giberti (Imola Foundation, Imola, Italy), Dr Perono Cacciafoco has presented the theoretical foundations of the New Convergence Theory (NCT) applied to a proto-historic case study of convergent involvement in the place naming process between Indo-European (Italic, specifically Umbrian, and Celtic) and Etruscan in the Italian region Emilia Romagna (here the link, ICOS 2014, Glasgow, August 25-29). In the South-East Asian context Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is applying the pattern of the New Convergence Theory (NCT) to some undocumented and endangered languages of the Timor area (in the absence of historical documentation), being able to reconstruct the Diachronic Toponymy of those places (the results of this new and innovative frontier of study are forthcoming). I think, therefore, that in the panorama of Indo-European Studies his voice is relevant and that it is worthy to appear on Wikipedia, in a page dedicated to his biography. That page is not "self-referenced", but it is an encyclopaedic addition to the lemmata about Indo-European Studies. As told, I'll be glad to talk again with You about this topic, if necessary, and I am at Your complete disposal.


 * DELETE I attempted to clean up the page last night but came to the same realization as Dougweller. The person in question may (and I stress "may") meet WP:NACADEMICS but the article bears no resemblance to a standard WP Biography article. It is almost entirely about his "New Convergence Theory". The citations are such a mess that I couldn't be bothered to check whether they would support BLP notability for Cacciafoco under WP:NACADEMICS and the list of "references" are all papers written by Cacciafoco himself. And while I am trying to assume good faith, I wonder about a possible conflict of interest based on the contributing editor's level of enthusiasm regarding the "New Convergence Theory".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

* DON'T DELETE Dear William, thank you very much for your kind opinion. I hope the Wikipedia's Editors read what I have written in my previous message in this page and in the present message. 1) As I tried to explain and as it is self-evident from the works of Dr Perono Cacciafoco (he has a double surname), the New Convergence Theory (NCT) doesn't need 'support' or 'enthusiasm', because the works inherent in it have been already published in really important scientific and academic Journals all around the world (also a book is forthcoming) and, especially, it is an open, all-embracing Theory, establishing a hermeneutic pattern applicable on a case-by-case basis in different contexts, without denying other Theories. The NCT doesn't want to be 'absolute', as - instead - the most of the recent Theories about Indo-European languages and Indo-European origins, and tries to incorporate all the best achievements from the other Theories, in order to allow a punctual and rigorous etymological reconstruction - case-by-case, indeed - and in order to go back, in the historical-linguistic reconstruction, until the remote (possibly prehistoric) origins of Indo-European place names and Indo-European languages. The reason that led me to write this page is not to 'support' the NCT (truly Dr Perono Cacciafoco doesn't need my humble and inappropriate support and he would have been not agreed), but the fact that the NCT is the most recent and effective Theory about Indo-European Linguistics and, therefore, I thought it would have been a relevant addition to Wikipedia. And of course I am in good faith. I asked the permission to Dr Perono Cacciafoco to write the page and, to tell the truth, I am not among his 'direct followers', in the meaning that I have a less all-embracing vision about Indo-European origins. But, following the famous sentence of Voltaire, I think that this Theory is effective and that its pattern can have a lot of fruitful applications in Historical Linguistics and, therefore, even if it is not 'the Theory of my heart', I think it is right it is presented on Wikipedia. 2) About the fact that the page would be not on Dr Perono Cacciafoco, but on the NCT, it is obvious. Dr Perono Cacciafoco is not a famous football player or a Roman Emperor, so his relevance as a Scholar is in the same fact to be a Scholar and, therefore, in his works and, mainly, in his Theory about Indo-European Linguistics. It is impossible to write a Wikipedia page on him without talking about the NCT, as well as it would be impossible to write a Wikipedia page on the NCT without talking about Dr Perono Cacciafoco, its Author. 3) At the same time, this Theory is quite recent, developed starting from 2010 - and the first all-embracing papers have appeared in 2013 -, so it is impossible to already want a lot of scientific publications (that will come) or sources about it. 4) I don't understand why the citations are "a mess", they seems to me quite clear, but I can be more exhaustive and clarify point-by-point, if You have questions. 5) A short addition. I am very sorry to have created all these complications to Wikipedia. I didn't think to be at the origins of all these problems, writing that page. I thought it was clear and simple, not needing such a debate. For this reason, I apologize with the Wikipedia Editors, it was not my intention. Always at your disposal and best wishes. Sincerely, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * DON'T DELETE - Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is a well known Indo-Europeanist in Europe and also in the US. Now he is working in Asia, bringing historical linguistics in places where it is linked just with Chinese and a few other languages, expanding, therefore, the field of research to so far not studied languages. I believe the page on him has not to be deleted, because it is a sober and good document. Moreover, the New Convergence Theory 'works' well. Just to give an example, it is the theoretical foundations of two important research projects that Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is conducting at the Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), 1. Toponymy and Grammatical Change: Aspects of Language Change in Southeast Asian Context, approved and founded by the European Commission, and 2. Toponymy and Language Shift: Aspects of Language Change in South-East Asia, approved and founded by the Nanyang Technological University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. He is also conducting a research project on the Minoan Linear A writing, in cooperation with the University of Kansas (US), always applying the guidelines of the New Convergence Theory to a new attempt of deciphering the Linear A script. This page on Wikipedia is a honest page, not supporting the New Convergence Theory, but providing a dispassionate and general survey about this theory. It's what it seems to me, at least. I believe that this page is more interesting that the 'naked' biography of the scholar. A researcher can be identified with his research and the New Convergence Theory is the most important contribution on Indo-European of the last years. Ask the historical linguists, if you don't trust on me. I tell, therefore, that it would be not appropriate to delete the page. This is just my opinion. Best, --XuBiba (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note: the User:XuBiba account was just created and its first and only edit was the above !vote in this AFD.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 12:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Having read the article, it's undoubtedly being used as a WP:COATRACK to push "New Convergence Theory". There is no indication whatsoever that either the scholar or his theory have made so much as a dint in the academic world. While it's understood that the notability guidelines for an entry for an academic are far less stringent than WP:GNG guidelines, the author of the article has already gone WP:TROJAN in appending it to other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let me say, first of all, that there's no way I'm reading the discussion that's already here, nor will I be reading any subsequent comments, because that is FAR too much reading. So, the article itself is meant to be about Francesco Perono Cacciafoco, an academic. As far as I can tell, he looks a lot like Lionel Messi, but fails the notability guidelines set out at WP:GNG and the more specific ones at WP:ACADEMIC . So it's delete on that count. However, it's not really about him; only the article lede is; the rest expounds at length about New Convergence Theory. As far as I can tell, that's not a notable concept, which means it's a delete on that score too, because we can't even rename the article 'New Convergence Theory'. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible all the DON'T DELETE votes are by the same editor?? Quis separabit?  01:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Highly likely, I'd say, or at least a product of WP:CANVASSING . Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear All, well, even if I don't understand Your rough 'hostility' to that page, I see that the debate has been already decided a priori, with the result of the deletion of the page. Ok, if You want to delete it at all costs, do this, delete it, You are welcome. I have committed a mistake posting it on Wikipedia. I thought it was the most appropriate and open-minded place. I was completely wrong. I just wonder if You have read the page in itself, if You have taken a look to the papers of Dr Perono Cacciafoco, and if You have read the comments trying to explain why that page should not be deleted. I think they should deserve a little bit of attention, before condemning the page without appeal. I am sad also about some comments not respectful at all addressed by some of You to Dr Perono Cacciafoco. I am so embarrassed, because it is my fault to have put indirectly him in this situation. I try always to be respectful and kind with everyone, I am doing it also now, here, and it is always my rule, but I don't see the same behavior, here around. Anyway, I think You commit a mistake in deleting this page, but, just because You want to do this, please, do it now, without waiting for further useless time, in a very unpleasant dripping. This seems more a factious action in law against Dr Perono Cacciafoco than a debate about a harmless page about him. I wonder whether there is censorship also here. I would like also to tell that an Editor saying, mocking disrespectfully, that a Scholar seems to Lionel Messi or that he (or she) will not read the discussion and the comments, because too long (if it is a 'debate', it is necessary to exhaustively explain and to show our opinions, isn't it?), well, I think he (or she) is not a good Editor. But, maybe, I am not a good contributor, so, no matter. I hereby change my vote in DELETE and, please, delete this page today, and don't talk anymore about this topic. I am sorry to have created problems. But I think you are wrong. I'll not post other messages, unless You have not specific and/or technical questions to ask me directly. I have nothing else to say. I wish You well. --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No disrespect meant to you or the academic in question, levity often helps calm a situation down; however, in my humble opinion, he doesn't meet the notability guidelines, as I described above. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In reality, I am a Chinese colleague of Francesco Perono Cacciafoco here in Singapore, the author of this article told me about it and, when I've seen the deletion debate, I've felt the need to participate. The theory of Francesco Perono is the most interesting theory proposed in the last years, I am not expert of Indo-European languages, but I am a Chinese linguist and I see that that theory works also with Chinese and with a lot of minority languages in Asia and in China. When he arrived here, we studied syntax, phonetics, pragmatics, morphology, something about semantics, but his arrival has allowed us knowing historical linguistic and to be deeper in our linguistic studies. He is a good scholar and his theory is something really simple and, at the same time, suitable to solve big scientific problems. I don't want to 'defend' him or his theory, because he does not need that, I wanted just tell you that I am not a shadow of the author of the page, even if I know him, I am a researcher in Chinese linguistics and I believe I can give my opinion about a man I know personally and a theory I have had the opportunity to experiment and to test in my field of expertise. I think that if you delete the page, as I believe you want to do, the page will be again written, in a few years, by someone else, because it is just a question of time the spread of the New Convergence Theory in the academic 'society' and the flowering of papers and debates on it. I believe I am not in conflict of interest because I tell that I know Francesco Perono Cacciafoco and the linguist author of the related page. I hope, at least. Cheers. --XuBiba (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, XuBiba. I thought you were probably a colleague or student. If indeed his ideas become popular (even if disputed) then that would be the time to recreate the page. It looks as though it is just too early for us. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Academics are fairly easy to assess because there are many quantifiable measures of impact in numerous databases. Unfortunately, this person has very little to show. WorldCat shows several books, the highest holdings of which are 17, and WoS shows 1 paper in a journal called ATENE E ROMA-NUOVA SERIE SECONDA, which has never been cited. There is much assertion given above, but the data are conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC).


 * If you look at WorldCat and at other 'academic' sources, more than the 50% of good Scholars would seem bad Scholars and around 50% of good Scholars would not appear there. Maybe you don't know the huge rate of corruption and patronage that is in the Universities (without exceptions, unfortunately), rate that has its mirror in the would-be prestigious academic Journals that are strongholds open only to the recommended and to the hangers-on of Full Professors who are, often, the Editorial Directors of the same academic Journals. Nothing to do with the quality of Science, maybe something (or more than 'something'?) to do with unscrupulous careerism and academic private fiefs. The sources to assess the Academics are neutral, the mishap is that both the academic Professor and the academic would-be prestigious Journals are not neutral at all. This is well-known and if someone doesn't know it, he (or she) is not so 'academic' or it is acceptable to suspect that he (or she) pretends not to know it. I want to clarify that I answered only because it is a technical comment. Sincerely, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete despite all the special pleading and walls of text in evidence above. No evidence of impact as measured by citations in Google scholar; does not pass WP:PROF. And as the subject's research seems to be on the fringe side, we need mainstream sources that discuss it in order to accurately describe the mainstream reception of those theories, per WP:NPOV; those sources are not in evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2014 (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.