Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Brucato

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Gary Brucato

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Gary Brucato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While accomplished, doesn't meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The article I created for this academic and author has been slated for discussion regarding possible deletion, due to an issue with notability guidelines. I have added his academic title, to address the second criterion noted, but do not know what is needed to address the first. He is the second half of a team that wrote the true crime book THE NEW EVIL, is responsible for co-developing a system for criminal classification which has wide implications for both academic and research fields, and has been covered in quite a number of places in the media outside of academia. This does not appear to be a situation in which an academic's work is only of relevance within his or her circles. Please let me know what is needed, as I may be able to provide the relevant information or citations. Additionally, I do not know how to add this discussion to the place you mention, where such conversation should be happening regarding the article. SH8901 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I would ask that you provide clear answers on what to address, rather than delete the page. It was a lot of work to do this research and writing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH8901 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Brucato's citation record on Google Scholar (highest citation count 36, h-index 6) is too slim to support a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I could only support a pass of WP:AUTHOR if he had multiple books with multiple published reviews each. Here there only appears to be one newly published book, with a more-notable co-author (although the article tries to make it appear like there is more than one by going into some detail about a book that Brucato did not write). I did find a couple of acceptably-reliable reviews [1] [2] but I don't think it's enough. And the way this article is puffed up with minor details and even-more-minor sources makes me suspect promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Low GS citations do not support claims of notability made in this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC).

Brucato's h index, shown here, is higher than the minimum of 6: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56276336500

The widely-used gradations system created by Stone for The Anatomy of Evil was revamped with Brucato for The New Evil, and the two have made numerous media appearances together, as a team. Familiarity with the book would make this quite clear. SH8901 (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Other "acceptably reliable reviews" can be found at the bottom of the book's entry on the publisher's web site, given by eight prominent scientists and authors, and Publisher's Weekly: SH8901 (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Finally, regarding the statement about "making it appear there is more than one book," it should be noted that The New Evil is the SECOND VOLUME of the first book referenced. The contributions of the second book make little sense without explaining how it builds upon the first.

It appears that, if an entry for Brucato is not accepted, an entry about the book might be a simple solution, as that would not require the same rigor, unless I am mistaken. However, it may be the opinion here that no page at all is worthwhile. Perhaps the group can let me know.SH8901 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As a final point, Criterion One states, "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." In the two Psychopharmacology articles given in the article, Brucato was the lead author, describing an entirely new model for psychosis and violence which is now the basis of a National Institute of Mental Health grant, which is described here:

This appears to satisfy Criterion One.SH8901 (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Perhaps you have misunderstood this process. There is a box that should appear in the upper right of this discussion page with pointers for newcomers. But: it is not a process where participants act as advocates or antagonists, putting forward the best face they can make in front of some impartial judge. We, the participants, are ourselves the judges, and are asked both to be impartial and to neutrally evaluate how well the subject fits our notability processes. If you cannot be impartial, your participation is more likely to be detrimental than positive for the case (see my earlier remark about promotionalism). It is even less a process where we come in already having decided that the subject should have an article and try to twist our notability guidelines to fit. If the subject is not notable, he is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

My question for the group is whether the scale included in the book should simply have its own entry. Are there notability requirements for pages about systems of psychological or criminal categorization? This is what made putting the article together interesting. Perhaps such things can be written up, and authors don't necessarily need their own pages? I am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH8901 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, can't some of the content-- details regarding the research on violence and psychosis, for instance-- be incorporated into other articles, appropriately? I simply want to try to find a way to not have wasted time with all this research and writing! I certainly appreciate the help.SH8901 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Final question: Is it not better for me to voluntarily delete the page, identify additional resources, revamp it, and repost, rather than for the page to have a history of prior administrative deletion? I ask your kind assistance. Please let me know. Again, my main concern is that I do not wish to waste time with the research I do for these entries-- 2 out of the 3 I have done have been marked for deletion like so.SH8901 (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Nom basically has it right. The assertion by SH8901 of h-index = 6 being passing is false. Historically, we have taken h-index > 15 as being a fairly clear pass of PROF C1. Agricola44 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone's comments are clear, and I understand. No problem. But no one has answered about whether there are pieces of the write-up which would make sense as elements of other articles.SH8901 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This may be the first time I've ever seen a higher h-index on Scopus than on Google Scholar, but the number on Scopus is only 7 (versus 6), which isn't nearly enough, either. Nothing in principle prevents the references in this article being used as citations in others, as far as I can tell, but the text is uncomfortably promotional and shouldn't be incorporated into other pages. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

So then there is no point in editing the article? The consensus seems clear. SH8901 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

How do I delete it myself? SH8901 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@SH8901: Unless you are an admin, you can't. If you were the main/only author of the page's content, you can add the g7 speedy deletion template to the top of the page and request that it be deleted. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

And once an AfD has started, you shouldn't request deletion until the discussion runs it's course. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 22 July 2019 (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.