Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael E. López-Corvo


 * 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. The article is reliably sourced, so no policy demands its removal. The argument that the availability of sources is limited by the subject's nationality is well-taken and difficult to rebut, given the interest of the encyclopedia in avoiding geographic bias. While the professor's notability is not clear for the discussion, consensus to delete does not exist, so keeping is the default outcome. Xoloz (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rafael E. López-Corvo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete for lack of notability and lack of appropriate third party sources. A list of publications does not establish notability. A couple of reviews do not establish notability. Article has been created and maintained by single-purpose user. Doczilla (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree that the article needs some cleanup to tone down the promotional aspect, but he seems to be a relatively notable academic.  Substantial body of work, some of which is cited by other academics, he has multiple books in both English and Spanish, was part of the editorial board for a major journal, and he's a notable speaker at academic conferences. I agree that the sources are a bit weak at the moment, but am willing to give some allowances since he was born in Venezuela. --Elonka 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have publications, I've been on an editorial board, and I've presented or co-presented nearly a hundred presentations at academic conferences. That's not sufficient. Insufficient concrete, verifiable information is presented regarding the notability of this work. I tried simply adding tags to nudge someone into adding information regarding notability, etc., but he/she won't let the tags remain in the article.Doczilla (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't really compare with you Doczilla, since I don't know who you are (though you're welcome to tell or email me, so I can look). :)  As for the tags though, I've added the article to my watchlist if you'd like to try again. Might also be worth posting about it at WP:COIN. --Elonka 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * very weak keep pending further investigation. The books reviews cited seem to be mere listings.  I'm removing some of the spam, and we'll see what is left. Doczilla is right, that conference presentations in science and medicine are meaningless to notability--with the exception of peer-reviewed published conference proceedings in some fields of engineering and computer science.  Nor is membership on an editorial board.  But s/he is wrong about using oneself personally as a standard of notability.  In any case, I've offered before also to try to write an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) December 8, 2007
 * I thought that exchanges between contributors, editors and administrators took place in the article's discussion page and not through tags that are immediately detrimental to the article and its subject. That's why I tried to remove Doczilla's tags, who in retaliation proposed the articles deletion. Although my contributions to the English wikipedia are very scarce, I'm not sure that Doczilla is right to state that I'm a single purpose user. I'm also curious to know why this article is more the focus of Doczilla's censorship than other ones I tried to draw to her/his attention (for instance, Manuel Isaías López). Lancet75 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tags are useful tools, and editors work in different ways. Fighting about the tags was not productive; it would have been better to let them stand. It's not helpful to make this personal with Doczilla; D, like you, is trying to produce the best encyclopedia we can.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I must admit that fighting about the tags was not productive. Their vilifying effect on the article is there for everyone too see. At this stage I'm only seeking to better understand the edition process and editor's motivations. I would have thought of tags more as a last resort solution.Lancet75 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. "Former associate professor, now in private practice" is a bad sign for passage of WP:PROF. Citation record in Google scholar is weak but I don't know whether that might be due to his field or language rather than a true sign of non-notability. Didn't turn up much in Google news. Basically, delete not because I'm convinced he's non-notable, but because nothing in the article and nothing I can find outside it convinces me he's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Following this discussion is instructing to me about editor's notability criteria. When creating this article I didn't' look up Google scholar(didn't even know it existed) I rather looked at articles of López-Corvo's peers (Otto F. Kernberg, Juan-David Nasio among others) that seemed to be accepted by the editors. Lancet (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Based on the information presented in the article, I would expect that the individual is notable. However, it's undeniable that there seems to be a lack of available sourcing about the person. I'll spend the next 15 or so minutes trying to determine to what extent the article's content is verifiable. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the indicators of notability for creative professionals noted at WP:BIO is: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". López-Corvo seems to be the originator of the term self-envy; however, since that article is rather short and unsourced, it's hard to tell whether the concept is "significant". I wonder whether Lancet750011 could provide the sources s/he used to write the article ... that might help. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are four sources cited in the article, of which three have web links.Lancet (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to the article on Rafael E. López-Corvo, not the self-envy article. Sorry for the confusion. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is based on my personal knowledge (I worked with him from 1973 to 1977). He is a very well known as psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in Caracas, Montreal and Toronto.Lancet (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While his record does indeed seem to suggest that he would be well known, "personal knowledge" cannot be used as the basis for article content. Content must be verifiable, meaning that it must have been published by one or more reliable sources. Are there any such sources of which you are aware? – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As for now I'm only aware of those sources I've given in the article. Please see Elonkas's contribution. The issue is not López-Corvo's existence but his notability. I created the article because he seems to me to be as notable as the other psychoanalyts whose articles I have quoted in this debate. Lancet (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While this is indeed a question of notability rather than existence, notability is measured via the extent of coverage in reliable sources, rather than through subjective evaluations of noteworthiness. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Citi Cat   ♫  03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my prior remarks. Plus, we now have WP:COI and, to some extent, WP:NOR issues. See above remarks: "The article is based on my personal knowledge (I worked with him from 1973 to 1977). He is a very well known as psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in Caracas, Montreal and Toronto." Also, supposedly being well known locally does not denote encyclopedia-worthy notability. Doczilla (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:COI for I have no stake in the keeping of this article and no WP:NOR for the few things I wrote about Rafael E. López-Corvo summarize what the quoted sources say.Lancet (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doczilla, I don't think original research is an issue in the article, except perhaps the use of the word "outstanding" (inherently subjective) outside quotation marks. There is no original interpretation, definition, or synthesis, but rather a more direct problem of verifiability. Whether this problem is due to the absence of coverage of the subject in reliable sources or simply an inability on our part to find this coverage, I can't say. As for the other matter, I'd consider being well-known in the major cities of two countries a good indicator of notability if only the claim was supported by a source. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Questions Is it a normal practice for the Afd nominator to vote? and vote twice? Am I, as author, entitled to vote?Lancet (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes, it is normal for the AfD nominator to "vote", and of course, you as author get to express your own position. I've seen authors vote to delete their own articles and categories on numerous occasions. As for the "second" !vote: See where the page says "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." Because some readers interpret that as starting all over, it can be necessary for someone who previously !voted to state that, regardless of whatever has happened in between, that individual continues to hold the same position. Not everyone will hold the same position depending on what the reason for relisting was. Whether there's a "second" is debatable anyway because after the actual nomination, I cast no !vote until the post-relisting entry. Doczilla (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, AFD is not a vote, although it's not conventional to leave two bolded comments (as it may subconsciously affect a decision). The arguments and recommendations of both the author and nominator should be considered by whoever closes the discussion. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Two main factors could explain why Lopez-Corvo doesn't fully meet Wikipedia's notability criteria:
 * 1) He spent most of his life and carrier (up to the year 2000) in Venezuela, a country that is not reputed for scholarship and psychoanalysis.
 * 2) Almost all the articles he published, as well as the articles that quote him, are not freely available as can be verified in Google scholar.Lancet (talk) 13:55, 19 December 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.