Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luciano Fadiga


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 06:13Z 

Luciano Fadiga

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neurophysiologist with work in some apparently notable projects. Procedural listing. BanyanTree 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why delete? Wooyi 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added that this is a procedural listing (after a speedy nomination) to the top. Also, a connection to something notable doesn't make one notable; there are any number of bit part actors in notable TV series whose articles are deleted. - BanyanTree 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article lists a significant research contribution, and there's plenty of reason to expect it to grow. There's also plenty of reason to give it more than the two weeks it has thus far been given. It takes a while for laypeople to write articles about academics and scientists, who are not as well covered in the popular press, and whose accomplishments are mostly buried in not-easily-accessible academic journals and databases.  Mark it as a stub and let people work on it. --lquilter 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I submitted this for speedy deletion because there is no assertion of notability in the article and the subject fails WP:BIO. This was not in agreement with the administrator who converted it to this AfD.  What significant research contribution is given in this article?  If it is his participation in RobotCub, then he is no more notable than the other dozens of people involved in the project.  If it is his neurobiology research, then I don't see how it rises above other professors' work.  There does not seem to be any large, independent review of his research and definitely no review outside his research area.  I have worked in multiple research labs and his body of work does not stand out from any other researcher's contributions in their fields.  There does not appear to be anything to add to this article.  He correlated brain signals in monkeys and humans (and he didn't even find the location in the brain that directly correlated to the monkey's F5 section) and he works on RobotCub.  That's all there is to his research and that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO.  ju66l3r 04:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ju66l3r, could you expand on "he didn't even find the location in the brain...". The Google scholar hits and "impact" for this persons articles are quite good (i.e. above average), so normally I would say his work is well cited, and vote keep.  However, it sounds like you can explain why the google scholar hits are out of whack with reality (or robotics as the case may be). John Vandenberg 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See my response below. ju66l3r 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete This guy is clearly not a complete bozo, but I am persuaded by Ju66l3r, who seems to know what he is talking about. I would be more impressed if Prof. Fadiga had written a textbook, some review articles, etc.  He may well be notable in a few years, but perhaps not yet. --Brianyoumans 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note for future reference: bozo the clown has an article here. Tparameter 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this guy does meet WP:PROF and WP:BIO. If you search for him using Google Books and Google Scholar he is widely published, mentioned and referenced.--Madmedea 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alf, you appear to say the same on every Afd. Please remember that the intention of Afd is not to convert a stub into a good article; we are trying to determine as a group whether it is a notable subject.  Thats all.  And to that end, doing some research and providing content-specific comments are preferred to rhetoric. John Vandenberg 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In almost every Afd, yes. If there are no references in an article it goes against WP:V and should therefore be deleted, especially then when we are refering to a still living person. Alf photoman 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But this article does have sources; they may not be great sources, but we have a tag for that: primarysources; also any sections or statements that are unfounded should tagged with unreferenced or cn; i.e. identifying weaknesses so others improving the article. To delete an article purely because it isnt perfect is a violation of WP:FAITH and would mean that 90% of stubs could be culled, and Afd would be overworked. John Vandenberg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep additional referencing by DGG establish notability, the article needs more work though Alf photoman 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there was no additional referencing. Only a sentence enumerating how many papers Dr. Fadiga has his name on was added.  Secondly, discussion here shows that a substantial portion of these 38 publications are middle authorship (not notable) and that later in his career he became last author (non notable, that's what happens when you run the lab instead of work in someone else's).  ju66l3r 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At best, this guy has the notability of an average junior professor at an average university. If we consider him notable then all biology professors are notable. For those outside the field: look at the CV of an HHMI investigator for an example of what's notable. --Dpryan 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I make no judgement regarding Fadiga's merit nor against the creator of this article. But more notability must be shown unless this article must be deleted.  Shaundakulbara 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * More notability was shown here before you commented, by Madmedea; books and journal articles indicate that there is a good chance this person is notable according to WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Have you taken that into account?  What are your thoughts?  John Vandenberg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I feel that guidelines make it necessary to to have the article assert notability.  The discussion is the place to point out that it does or doesn't.  I have happily changed my "vote" in AfD debates in the past.  So I advise introducing your evidence into the article.  If you want to drop me a note after this has been done, I'll be glad to take a look and (if applicable) change my "vote".  I think many, many articles get deleted that shouldn't, and many don't get deleted that should, and am always trying to tip these scales towards what guidelines recommend. Shaundakulbara 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I for one am not very impressed with the evidence introduced by Madmedea. The Google Books search did not turn up any books by Fadiga, only some citations (which are nice, but lots of people get cited.) There are a truly enormous number of Google Scholar hits... until you realize that "fadiga" is a word in (Portuguese? Maybe Italian as well?) He has published a number of papers, but it is always hard for an outsider to evaluate how valuable those are. I would be more impressed with review articles, books, awards... --Brianyoumans 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In Google Scholar, if you click on the link on the left "L Fadiga", it reduces the number to only entries where the person is one of the authors: 35 in notable journals and these articles are regularly cited by other articles. Each of those citations (1000s) can be considered a "review" of this mans work, by his peers.  It is hard for outsiders to judge, and that is why I asked if Ju66l3r can give more information.  If the work has has been discredited since then maybe it can be discarded or merely noted on the appropriate page.
 * Also note that he has written chapters in books, and is considered to be "the first to provide evidence that human beings have a system of mirror neurons analogous to system found in monkeys" . John Vandenberg 04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be recognized that nearly any researcher who publishes is likely doing so as the "first" to observe something. The contribution by the subject of discussion was to see parallels between primate and human brain responses (the region of the human brain responsible for what was observed was later determined by others according to the New Scientist article).  This does not reach above what any other professor accomplishes during their careers.  35 publications (per Google Scholar) is not necessarily above average for tenured faculty.  Many of these publications appear to be work primarily by others and list L Fadiga as a middle (often collaborating) author.  I am more moved by the 3 book citations provided above than the publication list.  The Guardian and New Scientist articles are about the total works of multiple professors' scientific contributions to fully characterize the F5 motor neurons and Dr. Fadiga is not the subject of the article in either case.  I do not see the notability requirements being met which is not to say that his research has not been important to its field.  Unfortunately, nearly every professor has contributed to their fields in important ways (it's part of what warrants their status in their profession) and so the notability requirements at Wikipedia are held fairly high to be sure that the encyclopedia is not flooded with every professor and simply becomes a Who's Who of PubMed/Citeseer/etc.  Furthermore, it should be noted that Dr. Fadiga's work was passed up in favor of reviews and work by his colleagues instead in the Mirror neuron article, suggesting that his work alone may not notable to the Wikipedia community improving the same scientific topic.  That his name is missing from that Wikipedia page is certainly more circumstantial but something to consider.  ju66l3r 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Continuing on what I wrote above, I checked ISI's HighlyCited.com which lists the 250 most-cited authors in each of 21 fields and did not find Dr. Fadiga. You may feel this is too restrictive, but I felt it was important to note that it is not as if he is an abnormally highly cited authors in neurobiology as a previous comment felt to be suggesting. Furthermore, I looked for more independent articles on mirror neurons and found an article by the New York Times from a year ago that thoroughly discusses the topic and does not note Dr. Fadiga. The television show NOVA by PBS has a site related to a story they did on the mirror neuron. Dr. Fadiga's work is not mentioned in the links nor are any of his 3 book chapter contributions part of the books listed for references by NOVA. The more I dig on this, the more I find that Drs. Ramachandran, Rizzolatti, and maybe Dr. Iacoboni are notable in this area, but not Dr. Fadiga at this time. ju66l3r 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * proper use of ISI highly cited. This source covers the period from 1981-1999, and will miss anyone whose work has been primarily published since that date. To verify that it hasn't been updated, i checked 5 neurophysiologists at random, and they each of them had their entire productive careers earlier than that, sometimes much earlier. DGG 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The original dataset for ISI HighlyCited was the 1981-1999 dataset, but every year the 20 year timeframe is shifted forward per their own description of how they calculate the citations.  Dr. Fadiga's citations are included in the current dataset but do not rise to the level of "highly cited" as defined by ISI.  ju66l3r 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

* Comment: media articles are usually biased on these topics because they do only sufficient research to be on safe ground. i.e. It is easier for a journo to omit the correct attribution than it is for them to mention all of the people who should be given credit. That said your articles do call my three into question, and your point about not being the primary contributor on most of those articles is what made me second guessing a vote for keep. I've delsorted it to Science/Medicine on the hope of an opinion from someone in the field. If one isnt forthcoming I'll ask someone specifically. John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Sorry neurobiology isn’t my field of expertise - I did this article because I saw he was heavily mentioned within robotics world. And I did the mistake to forget adding the stub tag at the beginning, I've been clumsy. But I still think he does meet the notability requirements Gilemon 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I am a neuroscientist and a quick search with Pubmed indicates that this person has very few first or last authored publications. He has only one top-tier hit via pubmed and it's a perspectives piece in science where he is was only the second author. That's pretty far from notable in our field. To be notable in neuroscience, you either need to publish a highly-referenced first authored paper in a top-tier (Nature/Cell/Science/etc.) journal or be a PI with last-authored publications in said journals frequently (i.e., every year or so). Perhaps this person is notable in robotics, about which I can not speak, but as a neuroscientist he is not notable. --Dpryan 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * first or last--since either can be the principal author position in biomedicine. I checked in pubmed. Of the most recent 38 papers listed there, 17 had  his name as either first or last author. More revealing, 12 of the most recent 20 did --meaning that most of the ones that didn't, were when he was a beginner. Google Scholar doesn't sort by year. PubMed does. DGG 01:42, 8 February 2007 (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.