Talk:Chiara Nappi

Untitled

This page is on the borderline with vanity, IMHO. --Cyclopia 15:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity? Can you tell me the exact words or sentences where you see vanity? maybe where it talks about string theory? or black holes? or maybe the fact that Dr. Nappi is married? -- J_mcandrews 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• See the vote for deletion I just put on. The problem, to put it short, is prof.Nappi looks like a brilliant academic researcher, but in the article no outstanding discovery or everything else clearly stating notability in her field is described. --Cyclopia 11:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Just for clarity, note that Cyclopia is not talking about vanity in the normal sense of the word, but rather the Wikipedia policy on vanity articles. The issue here is that it is not clear that Dr. Nappi meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. These are not currently laid out as specific rules, although there is a proposal under discussion, but the standard that has been in use for some time is that being a typical University professor (with a decent publishing record) is not enough. One must be an important figure in one's field, or the author of an important work, or have made an important discovery. Note that the standards are different for other fields of endeavour. Public figures are almost automatically notable even in the absence of discernable achievement, simply by virtue of being public figures. This is not a value judgement, but rather a judgement of whether enough people are familiar with this individual to properly maintain the article and ensure accuracy and neutrality. We can't ensure that articles on non-notable individuals satisfy the critical policies of neutral point of view and verifiability. This is nothing personal about Dr. Nappi. I'm sure she's a fine scientist. Perhaps someday she will be a notable scientist, and will merit inclusion here at that time.--Srleffler 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

so?

what's the problem if she never discovered anything? J_mcandrews 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• That she's not a notable scientist. --Cyclopia 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

she's a scientist anyway!!! J_mcandrews 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm a scientist too (I'm a biophysicist). Should I write a page about myself on WP? No. It would be deleted in a few seconds because of vanity. Why? Because I'm not an outstanding scientist and i (still :D ) didn't discover anything worth a page on an encyclopaedia. There are thousands of brilliant scientists. Should everyone of them deserve a page? --Cyclopia 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • YES !!! Everyone who is in the academia, writes academic papers, provides scientific or humanistic insights that allow the human being to advance in the human knowledge DESERVES a page on Wiki.. or certainly a citation. --J_mcandrews
    • This is a legitimate position, which can hold. If you can convince the WP community of your opinion, I will happily step back . --Cyclopia 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

and in the scientific community (to which i belong), she is considered an important professor and communicator. Is wikipedia used to talk and publish only descriptions of people who won nobel prizes? I don't think so, otherwise half of the pages on wiki should disappear ! J_mcandrews 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, is used to talk and publish descriptions of notable people of general interest. --Cyclopia 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok.. You're Italian.. aren't you? Fine.. let's create a webpage on Cicciolina.. after all, you italians elected her in the Italian Parliament, didn't you? then let's create a wonderful page on her..
    • You show to be a total newbie here on Wikipedia. Cicciolina already has a pretty good WP page. And rightly so, since she's absolutely notable in her field. --Cyclopia 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. btw: and what about all the famous Italian mafia men? don't they deserve a page on Wiki, since they are famous worldwide as well as in italy? --J_mcandrews

• Yes, absolutely. In fact there are a lot of them on WP. Absolutely rightly so. --Cyclopia 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW: look at all the publications she did in the last 30 years. Is this equivalent to nothing? In the scientific community, these papers are worth a lot.. the fact that you know nothing about astrophysics does not imply that you can ask for the deletion of someone's page, who certainly provided much more scientific insights than what you might do in your whole life. -- J_mcandrews 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Too bad I'm a (young,I admit) scientist too, and I am perfectly aware of the value of a good bibliography. Still, this means nothing for encyclopaedic criteria. --Cyclopia 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyclopia.. I've seen your page.. so you consider Veronica Lario more important that Dr. Chiara Nappi and worth a page on wikipedia? But ....isn't Veronica Lario Mr. Silvio "Mafia" Berlusconi's wife? Good choice of yours.. now I understand a lot about you..

• I agree Veronica Lario probably did much less contributions to human knowledge than prof.Nappi. The problem is Veronica Lario is a public figure that is well known (at least in Italy) not only for having been the wife of Berlusconi (a politician I don't like at all, BTW, just to shut down your snake-oil-remarks) but also for having been an actress and having outspoken herself on politics and his husband. She's notable, as sad as it can be. WP is an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda machine. --Cyclopia 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As notable as all the Italian porn stars? What's his name... Rocco Siffredi? the famous Italian porn star? ..then let's dedicate him a great, winderful page... after all, he is a "public figure that is well known"... --J_mcandrews

• Rocco Siffredi has a good wikipedia page too, and deserves it. Just for your pleasure ;), also Jenna Jameson has one. They're outstanding people of their field: accept it. --Cyclopia 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW: where? really.. WHERE? do you see in Dr. Chiara Nappi's page "propaganda"? ..and... give me the DEFINITION of "propaganda machine". Do you know the meaning of the term "propaganda machine"?

• Prof.Nappi page is (potentially) propaganda because it artificially gives notability and visibility on an encyclopaedia to someone that not necessarily is in the position to be included in it. By the way, I noticed you also wrote this page about her that is practically identical to the WP page we're talking about. Moreover it seems you are quite obsessed with this page -I count 12 edits to this page by you only on 6 August 2006. Your profile on blogspot also states you're a Ph.D. on astrophysics. May I ask why are you maintaining actively pages about the career and personality of Prof.Nappi? Are you just an admirer of her academic work? --Cyclopia 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for expansion

Given that my AfD didn't pass (and I gladly accept this), I at least request that the section on prof.Nappi achievements includes referenced, well-established and explicit evidence that her academic achievements are notable enough for her to stay on Wikipedia. I hope this is not a controversial request as the previous one. --Cyclopia 12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even a brief look at her SPIRES bibliography and numerous papers with over 100 citations should make this clear. No doubt there are many notable scientists who are not yet included, but this should be addressed by writing more biographies, not removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty14 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

Is it necessary to have also conference proceedings etc. listed? They're usually a lot in the contribution of every researcher, but an encyclopedic bibliography would better present selected, most important works (and maybe having a link to an external page with the full bibliography, if it exists). --Cyclopia 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Only a few papers which most directly relate to the Academic History discussion are now included. The link to her SPIRES database can be used to find more information. Dusty14 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Too technical?

Is the "Academic achievements" section too technical? RJFJR (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was unnecessarily technical. It now shorter and focuses on her most important contributions. A link to her SPIRES bibliography should satisfy those seeking more technical information. Dusty14 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Update

I have updated the page in several ways. First, inline references are included for all information for which they are available. The first sentences contain important information which is commonly known and not controversial, but a printed source is unavailable, to my knowledge. References to published works have been kept to a minimum, with only a few most significant papers selected. An external bibliography is shown to establish the range of research topics listed and provide more information. A sentence has been added on her interest in science education and women in science, and some personal biographical details are added, with a reference. Unnecessary technical detail has been removed from the Research section. Dusty14 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)