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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Federici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Bad speedy - not mine - declined; PROD - mine - removed by an author whose sole edits in his/her three days here has been to remove PROD tags for various dubious (IMHO) reasons. The PROD stood for 7 days.)

Now, we look at the article itself; superficially, not an obvious deletion, but still a deletion, I feel. The reference used is clearly not independent; it seems Federici is quite the man for self-promotion. As one editor notes on the article talk page, the books referenced are self-published works; and as another editor points out "It was posted in the same two-week time period in which there was a flurry of internet postings by this person about himself: directories, blogs, listings with adoption agencies, reprinting mentions in the press, etc. Just about the only thing distinguishable about this entry from the others is his failure here to tout certain questionable credentials and having a photo." The good faith search by editors more familiar with the subject than me (I'm just here to tidy the article up and start the deletion process) is detailed on the article talk page, though to very little avail.

Okay, so we have no really good independent and reliable sources - well, what about WP:ACADEMIC. That relies on being held in high esteem within his own scientific community. This doesn't look promising; neither does this when you get past the bad formatting and inherently POVish tone. I would also urge editors to read the talk page for more information and not take his google hits (which all look surprising similar) at face value, but instead to build up a better all round picture before coming to a decision. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't say I'm an "uninvolved" editor on this one as I am the main editor of Attachment therapy, a pseudoscience. Ronald Federici is considered by opponents of attachment therapy to be a proponent of attachment therapy. I understand Ronald Federici maintains he is not. I am aware of the recent flurry of activity on the web between Federici and others attempting to close down opponents websites and opponents fighting back. He also appears in the APSAC Taskforce report on the subject of attachment therapy and attachment disorder as a proponent of some controversial coercive practices but an opponent of others. However, on a search, leaving aside the controversy, the only thing of note I could find is that he appears to have been part of a team, inculding some notable names, who went out to Romania and assessed Romanian orphans and published their results in peer reviewed journals, about 10 to 12 years ago. This is respectable work but I haven't found anything comparable published since. I don't see that being a psychologist, whether controversial or not, is sufficiently notable when there are very limited peer reviewed or notable publications.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the peer-reviewed articles Fainites mentions are not directly relevant to the kind of work Federici now appears to do. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also cannot say that I'm not "uninvolved," having both taken aim at, and been a target of, Mr Federici, but I think I can provide some objective evidence abut the man. Let me quantify and report several items. First, in approximately the same time-frame as when this article was created, Mr Federici also created 22 blogs which consist almost entirely of his (dubious) CV and/or of links obviously designed to drive traffic to his websites (he has at least 9 domain names under his direct control): 11 of these blogs are at WordPress; 3 are at BlogSpot; 6 are at Zimbio; and one each at Vox and Netlog. Next, stretching back 4-5 months, there have been appearances of essentially the same promotional material (usually the same wording and organization) at 28 websites, including BigSight, LinkedIn, Naymz, Ziki, Xing, WAPR, Biznik, VisualCV, Livebiznet, Ikarma, … and Wikipedia. Third, his credentials, especially his academic achievements, are inconsistently reported in these places — and even on his own website(s). Fourth, there have been a handful of quotes from the man in a few breaking news stories, but nothing else to substantiate a claim that he is an "internationally recognized authority" on anything (much less who is doing the recognizing). Fourth, his only book (both editions) is self-published ("Ronald S. Federici & Associates"). Fifth, I am unaware that he is the lead author of any articles indexed in PsycInfo, and several articles reported to be "in press" in his current CV were also "in press" on his CV of almost a decade ago. And sixth, his ubiquitous list of Fellowships and Diplomates are all, arguably save one (ABN), identifiable as vanity boards. In sum, the only evidence for the criterion of notability appears to be the Wiki article itself. Larry Sarner (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2009 (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.