Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Riofrio

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Riofrio

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

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NACTOR (only minor/uncredited roles). A little bit of independant coverage (e.g. the Express story) and some unreliable sources, but don't think it's enough for WP:GNG. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- If the model was significant I'd expect to see a lot more independant discussion of it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:10, 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]
Comment What's her impact factor? I see 4 or 5 publications with her name in GScholar, that seems non-trivial to me. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw her GScholar entries and thought it was very minimal, including minimal citations by others. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete as I don't find any critical discussion of her work, nor any indication it's received much notice at all. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think most scientists are notable. This person is the author of some academic papers and I think that's enough. --Bedivere (talk) 22:32, 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]

I have to agree with Phil Bridger here: it really, really isn't enough. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for grad students. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No indication of being noteworthy as an actor, a physicist, or a fringe physicist. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 12 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.