Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffaella Di Marzio

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella Di Marzio[edit]

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

Italian clinical psychologist with an interest in cults. She has a handful of publications, none of which has been cited extensively according to GS (single digits, except for Le religioni in Italia, which has been cited 20 times). Sources in the article are (numbered as of the moment of writing this AfD): (1) not independent, (2) brief review, (3) quote in a small magazine of unclear notability/reliability, (4) no link, but apparently a quote in the famous For Men Magazine, (5) unclear, as I cannot open the video, (6) radio interview on a station of unclear notability and not verifiable. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Raffaela di Marzio is a noted part of the anti-cult movement - she has written multiple books on the topic of cults and religion, as a psychologist and a catholic and is cited in a number of books -

Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices - J. Gordon Melton, Martin Baumann
Occulto Italia - Gianni Del Vecchio, Stefano Pitrel
Le religioni in Italia - Massimo Introvigne
Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults, Janja Lalich

...To name but a few.

She is also part of the International Cultic Studies Association board, one of the largest, if no the largest, "anti-cult" groups in the world.

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The article needs to be developed further, not deleted. Zambelo; talk 01:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked in Google Books, and she is one contributor amongst dozens in the encyclopedia by Melton. In "Occulto Italia" she has a single footnote in the bibliography. In "Le religioni in Italia", she is cited as "a collaborator", and in "Bounded Choice" she is not even mentioned. This person does not meet the notability threshold for Wikipedia. Being cited in a couple of obscure books is not enough. Add to it the lack of reliable secondary sources that attests to her notability, and we have a no brainer here.- You can mention Di Marzio in the International Cultic Studies Association, but for a full article we need notability. Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? She has a high enough profile within the religious scholar community to be included in an important publication. She is published within the circle of religious scholars studying New Religious Movements - this means that the sources where she is referenced also belong to this relatively small group of authors on this niche subject within religious studies. She is notable as a new religious movement researcher, associated with ICSA (but independently notable), referenced by her peers, and having been published in numerous peer-reviewed articles as well as some other publications. She has also been interviewed in her various roles by the mainstream media. She has also given various conferences on the topic of new religions and cults. The article should be kept, and expanded. Since Di Marzio is Italian and writes in Italian, there are italian sources available that can be used for the article. You've mentioned the existing references, but have you looked for new ones? Zambelo; talk 05:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please familiarize yourself with WP:ACADEMIC. Publishing is what academics do and in and of itself does not make them stand out. My undergraduate student has published in peer-reviewed journals, that does not yet make her notable. What is needed is that people have noted those publications. You only need to click the link to GScholar above to see that the numbers of citations to her works are very low. While that doesn't prove non-notability (not something that can be proven anyway), it does not indicate any notability either. As for your last remark, have you looked for additional references? And what did you find? (And a final request: could you perhaps indent/format your comments as usually is done in AfD debates, because that makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. Thanks.) --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming she is an academic. Her work is however referenced in other works by prominent authors. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." is from Wikipedia:Notability_(people). She appears in scholarly articles, books, and in print, radio and TV media. Zambelo; talk 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the lead starts: "Raffaella Di Marzio is an Italian clinical psychologist, Catholic teacher. She is a member of the editorial board of the academic journal, Cultic Studies Review,[1] and director of the Sectes, Religion, Spirituality Counseling Center, in Rome." That sounds pretty much like an academic to me. And most of your argument above is based on her having published "within the circle of religious scholars" and "peer-reviewed articles", all things that non-academics really don't do. But if you don't want to apply WP:ACADEMIC (like all SNGs, designed to make it a bit easier for academics to pass our notability guideliens), I'm fine with applying GNG, because the paucity of coverage makes her pass that one even less than ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination and discussion above (specifically, even if we use the more lenient guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC, this BLP does not meet Notability). --Tgeairn (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination - promotion creation article by user smee - User:Smee - Tuscantreat (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, there's just no meat here. There are versions in the history where an attempt was made to create more content, but basically this was no more than a fluffed-up resume (you'll find earlier versions where the claim of over 100 published articles was sourced to her own website). Neither her job nor her publications allow her to pass via PROF, and a few media appearances don't yet make for notability, so the GNG is certainly not met. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looks like the usual delete squad is out if force. Good job guys. Zambelo; talk 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we are! But let me tell you about a secret weapon that goes directly for our Achilles heel: significant coverage in reliable sources! Works like magic, I guarantee you! Just a few of those, and you might even see the squad !voting "keep"! --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were true, the squad would be more intent on finding new sources, instead of deleting entire articles that could be improved. It's very easy to destroy another person's hard work. Zambelo; talk 08:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The squad didn't find any sources, so the onus is now on those arguing to keep the article to come up with a good reason to do so. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. There's one editor (me) looking to find sources. Meanwhile there's three of you tearing down articles and then deleting them. Great procedure, I hope you're proud of the really constructive work you're doing here. Zambelo; talk 09:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's so nice to see people assume good faith that somebody who nominates an article for deletion has followed WP:BEFORE. Creating good content is what should make an editor pourd, but there's no reason to be ashamed of taking non-notable content to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith was after the first three or so articles. Good faith after the 7th or 8th is a little hard to justify. That, and the fact that you never attempted to constructively add to, or discuss, the articles. 11:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding is difficult to do if there is nothing to add... --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very reluctant to delete an article on a national figure that has an extensive article in their national WP, though this depends on the particular WP in question--I will always accept the judgments of the fr and de WPs, whose standards are more rigorous than our own; I am somewhat less convinced about the others. When, as here, the article is not fully translated, we need to consider what it in the other WP that could be used. I think te material in the Italian WP shows that she is an authority on new religious movements, and that meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, I am a bit surprised by your reasoning. As far as I can see, the Italian wiki has no additional independent sources than our article here. The main difference between the two articles is a long list of Di Marzio's publications and I think there's a long-standing agreement in AfDs for academics that publishing alone does not make them notable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2014 (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.