Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Ferrada de Noli (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 keep. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Ferrada de Noli

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Ferrada de Noli, which assessed his notability in considerable depth. I haven't seen the previously deleted article and so am not prepared to tag this for G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The arguments in favor of deletion in the first AfD are entirely persuasive, and I've found no sources appearing online in the nine months since the AfD to suggest the subject's gained the notability he did not previously have. Ravenswing 05:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is completely obvious. Very few academics have such rich careers. Zero^talk 09:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zero, and per the extensive article on es:wp. The article does, however, need substantial copy editing. --NSH001 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He certainly isn't notable according to academic considerations "rich career" notwithstanding. The article still seems to have PROMO problems, but I don't have time to wade through the prolix notes in the references. However, the rest of the lede does not seem to indicate notability for his other activities the article discusses. Agricola44 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I submitted the AfD proposal for the previous version of the article. I have not had an opportunity to look at the updated page. However, I should mention that the articles on this subject in other language wikipedias, including es:wp, are largely direct translations of the previous article. After the previous AfD proposal was accepted, I left a message on the talk page of the Spanish language article mentioning this development, but the editors did not take any action after that. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, pr his involvement in MIR, pr WP:NACADEMIC, and pr. his involvement with SWEDHR. Incidentally, the opposition to de Noli and SWEDHR was mainly because they questioned the Western "popular belief" that the Syrian government had used gas in their attacks....however, today, that is being questioned even by persons such as the French President, Emmanuel Macron [1], not to mention people like Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter. Having said all this, I also agree with NSH001 that the article needs substantial copy editing, Huldra (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is obvious. He has played a historic role in Chile's political history as an actor and as a witness, has been a prolific writer documenting in a scientific manner the Media coverage of the Julian Assange case offering uniquely Swedish insights, has decades long record of contributions to society as an academic and Human Rights Defender.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekemmy (talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)— Greekemmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The original AfD debate focused on three areas of notability - 1) His academic career; 2) His association with MIR; and 3) His recent political advocacy.

For 1), it was determined that he would not meet the notability guidelines as per WP:PROF. The current article has trimmed away most of the bits that played up his academic achievements (which were quite typical of a professor in his field), but retains some. For example:

The word "amazing" taken completely out of context in a book which refers to a study conducted by Ferrada-Noli, is cited as praise for his work. In fact, can be seen in the excerpt, his work is one of many mentioned in the book, and only briefly.

Visiting positions at two universities are cited as examples of honors, when in fact this is a common practice in academia.

The fact that a search on Google Scholar for his name throws up 700 (not 800, as stated) results is cited as an achievement. This is actually a pretty average number for a tenured professor in a medical field.

For 2) The new article still claims in the lede that Ferrada-Noli was one of the founders of MIR, though the previous AfD determined that the evidence for such a claim was shaky. In the rest of the article, the statements of his association with that body have been dialed down - they now state that he was associated with that organization in various capacities, which is verifiably true. However, it is clear that he was one of many left-wing students in Chile at the time for whom such a claim can be made, and does not in itself rise to the level of notability.

For 3) The updated article takes a more balanced view of his work with SWEDHR, a pro-Russian website to which he is a frequent contributor. The controversy over that site is largely covered on their page, and do not add notability to Ferrada-Noli. None of the other regular contributors to SWEDHR have their own pages on Wikipedia, for example.

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that none of the other members of SWEDHR presently have their own en.wp articles, several of them (like the professors Marita Troye-Blomberg and Anders Romelsjö) are quite distinguished scientists, who could merit their own articles. Feel free to start them, if you like, (PS Leif Elinder has an article in sv.wp, [2]) Huldra (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the argument about other peoples articles fails. The word amazingly is of course over the top, but now removed but in itsef totally irrelevant to notability. 800 hits or so at Google Scholar is an indication of notability. You state that several other students was part of this, but that in itself is irrelevant to an individuals notability and work within an organization etc. In fact most of your argument for deletion is very "he has notability through this, but not really because..." you actually state several things that shows notability. So thank you.BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obvious notability, played a significant role in Chiles political history. Good sourcing. per WP:GNG. Per WP:NACADEMIC. Previous deletion doesn't mean automatic Delete again. Any strawman claim about sources is covered by WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also pointing towards WP:ANYBIO, passing point 2.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this page is ...how shall i say. Overdetermined? This person may be marginally notable but given the persistent, unyielding advocacy pressing on this, I have no hope of this ever being an actual WP article. It just some argument dragged in here and left bleeding all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why confirm notability and then WP:IDONTLIKEIT, like several above. BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "confirm notability". Marginally notable is not notable. What i DONTLIKE is advocates who waste everyone's else's time beating the hell out of things; the subject of this article has nothing to do with that. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is evident in different activities. And one would be enough.

On notability ref. MIR: Wikipedia articles on MIR, both in Spanish and English, say Ferrada Noli was a co-founder of MIR. In the English MIR article Ferrada de Noli is in the list of MIR "Notable Members". In the article in discussion here, there are a number of NEW, verifiable academic and books references that evidence that too.

On notability ref. academia: N° 1 option in WP to assess academic notability: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." In the Textbook of Psychiatry used in all medical schools in Sweden, several psychiatric / epidemiological findings of FerradaNoli have been included. As pr. reliable source (verifiable): See ref 36 in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Ferrada_de_Noli#cite_ref-36

On notability ref. current events: According Wikipedia, SWEDHR is notable. But not its founder, current president, and main representative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.57 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 88.128.80.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. UN Security Council recently published, as official document, an analysis of Ferrada de Noli of the UN-JIM report, Dec. 2107. A main result of his investigation is that no conclusive evidence on the ‘sarin’ attacks in Syria exists. Same conclusion was repeated by US Def Sec Jim Mattis, 2 Feb 2018. Source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/1010. In the author’s bio section of this UNSEC doc there is a WOW link to his CV [3], where it is found the proof about what he received at the Medical Faculty in Cuba 2005 was an award for his international research, and not a “position” (as it has been equivocally informed in the discussion here). Quote from the statement of two department-head professors at the Karolinska Institute, one of them a Nobel Prize nominee (Karolinska Institute Registra’s Office. N° 1217/2007-2335): “Professor Ferrada-Noli’s research on PTSD and suicidal behavior in a cross-cultural perspective has been internationally recognized, and for that reason he received an academic award from the Instituto Superior de Ciencias Médicas de La Habana, one of Latin America’s oldest and most prestigious medical faculties. The award was reported in The Karolinska Institute’s Year Book 2005.”

Lastly, about notability in MIR, Andrés Pascal Allende, nephew of the late President Salvador Allende and head of the MIR after the death in combat of Miguel Enríquez, issued a statement in 2017 affirming that Ferrada de Noli was one of the MIR founders and coauthor of the “first document approved in the history of the MIR”. The document is found here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts132 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Facts132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I'm not certain how notable Dr. De Noli is, by the usual standards... but it strikes me those supporting deletion seem to also not like his "pro-Russian" views - which they've apparently noted, and felt compelled to sanction by urging this page be deleted because De Noli is not notable enough (or perhaps more notable than they'd like?). I'm a supporter of his views and their value in bringing balance to the debate on "humanitarian interventionism" and other issues. I've also had a few articles published at the Indicter. And here I am arguing to keep the page. Notability is apparently the issue. I was going to mention the new development mentioned above by few-edits user Facts132. In case I have more weight, I'll repeat the same. His views are being circulated as credible - by the Russians - at the United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/1010. Also note Facts132 noting the resolution of DeNoli's status as a MIR founder. I can't vouch for that, but this being relevant to his notability, take note that Andrés Pascal Allende at least allegedly confirms the doctor's centrality, according to this letter. --AdamakaCausticLogic (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF. Notability depends on being recognized as an authority in oner's subject. This is measured most usually by citations. It is not the total number of citations that matter, because a large number of minor publications does not show one an authority, merely an industrious worker. The distribution is what matters: there need to be some highly cited papers. This depends on the field--fields with a higher publication density have higher citation counts. In analyzing this at WP for people in his field of biomedicine, it has become customary to require at least one publication with 100 or more citations. Google scholar shows 223 for his most cited paper (Ferrada-Noli M, et al, Suicidal behavior after severe trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1998 Jan 1;11(1):103-12.) and 97, 91, 66 48 for the next most cited. Anyone with this many citations is an authority in their subject. (The reference in Clinical Psychology Reviews confirms it--that's a MEDRS quality secondary source)

I think the political role in Sweden is also notable, though it's a little harder to tell what is his personal notability as compared to the others in his group. His earlier political role in Chile seems to be much disputed, as may depend on the various possible meanings of "founder" -- it is used for anything from the principal organizing figure to those who were members at the beginning.

The excessively laudatory article and the tone of hte discussion here complicates the issue. It's clear that an article more focussed on the scientific work, and giving the range of opinions about his political career would be much more acceptable. (This is characteristic of those who wish to promote someone's significance--they sometimes insist on a wildly excessive article which only discredits the true importance) The article will need to be revised form a neutral POV. Butit's worth doing, because there is no doubt about his meeting WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 25 February 2018 (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.