![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on August 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
what's the problem if she never discovered anything? J_mcandrews 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
she's a scientist anyway!!! J_mcandrews 10:44, 7 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)
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
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)
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..
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
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"?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)