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.
Why the "Louise Riofrio" article belongs in Wikipedia
Arguably, Riofrio satisfies the criterion "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" — if by "field of entertainment" means a combination of minor acting roles combined with scientific activity — as if a singer had given conference talks on archaeology — or a nightclub comedian had given conference talks on chemistry. In this regard, Riofrio seems quite remarkable.
Also, note that Wikipedia has the "Category:Pseudoscientific physicists". If Riofrio's cosmological model is empirically valid, she is an extraordinary genius — if her cosmological model is empirically invalid, she is an outstanding "pseudoscientific physicist".
Suslindisambiguator (
talk) Feb. 7. 2023
Delete. Comes nowhere near meeting
WP:PROF with only a few citations to her work, and also nowhere near
WP:NACTOR with only a few uncredited and minor roles. I also can't see any case for the
general notability guideline. The subject appears to be subject to
WP:FRINGE with her main claims to fame being her statements that the speed of light is changing and that there is a black hole in the centre of the Earth. Only very credulous sources report on such things. More reliable sources just ignore them.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment.
WP:AUTHOR would give he a pass if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Is her model significant? It seems that maybe. I'm leaning keep, based on this unconventional application of notability guidelines, seeking feedback on that.
CT55555(
talk)
20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair comment. I'm now undecided, considering she is mildly notable for multiple things, doesn't seem to have significant coverage, might pass WP:BASIC...not sure how to !vote...
CT55555(
talk)
21:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
If we were to take that approach then nearly everyone with a PhD would be notable. That would require a major overhaul of
WP:PROF, which is one of the most successful of our notability guidelines in its current form.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Riofrio isn't a first-author or even a co-author on a single peer-reviewed paper, save a fly-by-night journal (Planetary Science) that published four issues of a mere 9 papers and has no recorded list of editors or even of peer review. The "Selected publications" are otherwise submissions to conferences, which receive no or little vetting. Nor does she apparently have a Ph.D. Her "credentials" as a conservationist are a link to an apparently self-written profile on "The Cruise Ship Enrichment Network" that does not mention the word "conservationist," but in which she claims to be "invited to speak at scientific conferences worldwide." This doesn't pass the smell test.
Donaldjbarry (
talk)
16:50, 13 February 2023 (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.
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.
Why the "Louise Riofrio" article belongs in Wikipedia
Arguably, Riofrio satisfies the criterion "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" — if by "field of entertainment" means a combination of minor acting roles combined with scientific activity — as if a singer had given conference talks on archaeology — or a nightclub comedian had given conference talks on chemistry. In this regard, Riofrio seems quite remarkable.
Also, note that Wikipedia has the "Category:Pseudoscientific physicists". If Riofrio's cosmological model is empirically valid, she is an extraordinary genius — if her cosmological model is empirically invalid, she is an outstanding "pseudoscientific physicist".
Suslindisambiguator (
talk) Feb. 7. 2023
Delete. Comes nowhere near meeting
WP:PROF with only a few citations to her work, and also nowhere near
WP:NACTOR with only a few uncredited and minor roles. I also can't see any case for the
general notability guideline. The subject appears to be subject to
WP:FRINGE with her main claims to fame being her statements that the speed of light is changing and that there is a black hole in the centre of the Earth. Only very credulous sources report on such things. More reliable sources just ignore them.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment.
WP:AUTHOR would give he a pass if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Is her model significant? It seems that maybe. I'm leaning keep, based on this unconventional application of notability guidelines, seeking feedback on that.
CT55555(
talk)
20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair comment. I'm now undecided, considering she is mildly notable for multiple things, doesn't seem to have significant coverage, might pass WP:BASIC...not sure how to !vote...
CT55555(
talk)
21:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
If we were to take that approach then nearly everyone with a PhD would be notable. That would require a major overhaul of
WP:PROF, which is one of the most successful of our notability guidelines in its current form.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Riofrio isn't a first-author or even a co-author on a single peer-reviewed paper, save a fly-by-night journal (Planetary Science) that published four issues of a mere 9 papers and has no recorded list of editors or even of peer review. The "Selected publications" are otherwise submissions to conferences, which receive no or little vetting. Nor does she apparently have a Ph.D. Her "credentials" as a conservationist are a link to an apparently self-written profile on "The Cruise Ship Enrichment Network" that does not mention the word "conservationist," but in which she claims to be "invited to speak at scientific conferences worldwide." This doesn't pass the smell test.
Donaldjbarry (
talk)
16:50, 13 February 2023 (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.