Talk:Armando Favazza

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Autobiography NPOV tagging

Hi, I have tagged this using the template {{autobiography}}. I am not convinced it neccesarily conforms to neutral point a view and may represent a conflict of interest. Also, although they are a respected academic, I am not sure they meet the wikipedia notability guidlines. Regards, Polyamorph (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the editor Psychlopedia who started this page has a conflict of interest. I think the efforts would be much more wisely spent editing the artcile self-harm instead of some non NPOV biography. That is my opinion anyway. In my line of work I meet a lot of professors, I might even be one myself one day (and i'm not talking about the american style professorship where all you have to do is get a phd to become a proffessor). But I wouldn't say that any of them would be notable enough for their own wikipedia page, no matter how many high profile publications (e.g. nature etc.) they have published. Of course if they get a noble prize or make a significant change to the way of thinking in their field them they might be notable enough. But in this article I don't really think that this is the case. The claims that are made in this article are all uncited and most probably arise from a conflict of interest. We'll see how it goes but if the claims go uncited for too long the article will have to go to AfD. Regards, Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion

It's been some time since I tagged this article re: sources, point of view and conflict of interest. None of these issues have been addressed. Does this author actually meet notability guidelines? (WP:Notability). Just because they are an academic with publications and a few (un verified) media appearances does not make them notable. Outside of the field of Self-harm they are not likely to be known at all. Even in the field of self-harm they are just another author, there are plenty of very respectable academics who publish in this field with probably more notariety than this author yet they do not have their page and quite rightfully, it is far more sensible to cite the sources of these authors in relevant articles than create biographies of them. Otherwise we could have a biography of pretty much anyone who works in academia. Besides these points this article is still wholly uncited, has point of view and conflict of interest issues. I propose it be deleted by have decided to discuss it here first before taking it to AfD. Polyamorph (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lack of sources and the fact that he has edited the article himself, are both problems. I would be inclined to think that he does meet WP:ACADEMIC, although I am not 100% confident of my interpretation of that, I've not dealt much with notability of academics. #1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." - I would say he's certainly made significant impact in the field on self-harm, but is that too narrow a field to count? He also seems to have had impact on the study of body modification. #7 "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - this is a bit vague, but possible. He seems to be mentioned in many mainstream newspaper articles that discuss self-harm or body modification. The trouble I'm having is that many of the sources that mention him are behind paywalls, so it's hard to see how significant the coverage is. I'll try and find some to add, but otherwise taking it to WP:AFD probably won't hurt as it'll bring more eyes onto the situation.--Beloved Freak 08:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to WP:ACADEMIC. According to notability criteria it would seem that notability is not an issue. Favazza does meet several of the notability critereon and it says that only one is needed to be notable. But then that is only going by the uncited claims in the article themselves, (e.g. fellow of the American College of Psychiatrists and life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association). I have no reason to believe these facts are false but they need to be verified. So then it just remains whether it meets WP:POV or WP:COI and whether this would be grounds for deletion. There are parts that really do sound like self-promotion and advertisement for Favazza's literature. Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of sources, one of them was this bio which is not ideal, being a primary source, but at least verifies some of his biographical info. I've dropped a note at the psychology and psychiatry wikiprojects in the hopes that someone there can help.--Beloved Freak 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armando Favazza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]