Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paola Zizzi (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Zizzi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Physicist whose publication record does not meet our typical standard for wiki-notability of scientists, and for whom there does not appear to be the kind of secondary-source coverage that would justify an article on any other grounds. Passing mentions in a couple books on esoteric topics, low citation counts, publications mostly just on the arXiv or in marginal journals (e.g., being the guest editor for a 2-article "special issue" of Entropy [1]). The article was previously deleted in 2010, and I cannot find reasons to argue that the situation has changed since then. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Italy, Science, and Women. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still does not pass WP:PROF (or any other notability criterion), and in particular her citation record, while significantly improved from the last time around, is still not enough for #C1. The article is formatted to look like its reference is nontrivial coverage of her work in a book by someone else, but that is misleading: actually the only reference is to a chapter she herself wrote, in an edited collection of papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I noticed it but, per my typical disorganization, failed to mention it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A case could be made that she might reach WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF based on non-scientific mentions... but not a good case. PianoDan (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks to me like this was re-created much to soon after the first AfD. But, here we are. I didn't see enough references that could expand the article never mind footnote what little is there now. Without that it fails to establish notability. --mikeu ^talk 20:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ She has presented a unique theory (WP:FRINGE alert, although hosted by Cornell University) presented here: The Early Universe as a Quantum Growing Network and that has been discussed in a book (although she also wrote of the chapters, so the independence is utterly debatable) (The book: Physics of Emergence and Organization. (2008). Singapore: World Scientific.) That's not enough, I think. But a Google book search does bring up many hits about her theory.

For example page 194 of Lataster, R. (2018). The Case Against Theism: Why the Evidence Disproves God’s Existence. Germany: Springer International Publishing.

So, therefore, we could consider her notable as per criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE if felt she was widely cited. That's debatable, but I think maybe yes.

Criterion 2 is if she is known for "originating a significant new concept, theory" and that is what clinches it for me, because my analysis is that is exactly what she has done.

Now, I've not spent hours on this, I may have misunderstood, but that's how I see it. Thoughts? CT55555 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, the "hosted by Cornell University" link you provide is to the arXiv. That does not count as Cornell giving the paper its imprimatur. All sorts of material ends up on the arXiv; preprints that have not gone through formal peer review are not reliable sources (and none of the rare exceptions where we can actually use them apply here). As to the rest, I found all of those sources. None of them amount to significant and independent coverage, and evaluating a nominally-scientific claim by the standards we apply to artistic works is even odder than comparing apples to oranges. It's easy to write a paper and have a few people chatter about it in marginal publications. Writing encyclopedia articles about fringe topics means we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point, the website was funded by Cornell, the paper isn't hosted by them. I also agree that the depth of coverage is shallow. WP:CREATIVE is for a wider range of professions than artists, it's for creative professionals, authors, editors, economists, architects, so that unarguably includes non-artistic professions. Should it include scientists who develop theories? That's a fair point to debate, but not as clear cut as you've presented it. I do find that the guidelines aren't good for inventors. Maybe I should have just stuck with WP:NACADEMIC which, to pass, would need "significant impact" or "substantial impact". Is a new theory a "significant impact" I'm honestly not sure. Your feedback has shifted me somewhere between weak keep and uncertain. I'll pause for others to comment and may refine or update my analysis. CT55555 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a paper that has attracted all of 22 citations in more than two decades, 8 of which were by the author themselves, with 2 of the remaining being actually peer-reviewed, and the longest discussion in either of them only a single sentence, I can't call that "significant impact". (The ratios are a little different for the other publications, but they all have the same problem.) Contrast with, to pick names off the top of my head, Bianca Dittrich and Renate Loll in quantum gravity, Fay Dowker in quantum gravity and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, Claudia de Rham in cosmology... I'm generally happier when articles can be fixed up and held onto, but I just don't see how that is possible in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that feedback. It suggests you have subject matter expertise? I don't, so if you do, that makes me even more likely to agree with you. What's your analysis of the various books that talk about her work? CT55555 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a physicist, with all the good and bad things that implies. Lataster's Case Against Theism is a counter-blast to William Lane Craig; setting aside any opinions about the worth of apologetics and counter-apologetics overall, the relevant point for the question at hand is that it gives Zizzi a one-sentence passing mention. The author works in a religious-studies department and has a degree in that field, so we shouldn't expect a detailed discussion of the physics. Moreover, the paper by Zizzi that he cites was published in NeuroQuantology, a "journal" that provides no meaningful peer review. (To be fair, someone who is not a specialist in physics or neuroscience may well be ignorant of its status.) None of the other Google Books hits provide more to work with. The first of them, The Archetype of the Number and its Reflections in Contemporary Cosmology, is downright crackpot, and The Science Behind the Secret is no better. Gregory Chaitin drops her name in with a list of physicists who think about information, but we can't base an article upon a statement that practically boils down to "this person is one of eight people who exist". XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've talked me out of my "keep". I'm about to score it out. Thanks for the careful feedback to my !vote. CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pleasant conversation about it! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The discussion above has convinced me.--Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the interesting conversation above Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs to have more coverage and in-depth articles about it. Fails WP:PROF.Samanthany (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily fails WP:NPROF, not convinced meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.