Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Moalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. --Ezeu 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Moalem

Sharon Moalem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

"Prominent figure in the field of evolutionary medicine." Gets 578 Google hits. Most relevant publications on a very narrow area of iron homeostasis in neurodegenenative disease, mostly unproven. Fails WP:PROF in my view JFW | T@lk 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article is kept, an urgent vanitectomy is required. JFW | T@lk 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability is claimed but I couldn't find any sources to back this up Jayden54 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep - the New York Times article mentioned by Evolu does mention this person and calls him an "expert" so he does appear to be quite notable, although I'm not entirely sure if that's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Weak keep for now. Jayden54 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What measures does the NY Times use to determine who is an expert and who is simply churning out some mildly interesting stuff? Citation index will do, prominence in international conferences? Don't always believe the papers. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Do not Delete - I am the article's primary author and based my view of 'prominent figure on the New York Times article on his theories which describes him as an 'expert' see references —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evolu (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • News resources are well known for lazily copying material from press releases. Remind me, on what grounds does Dr Moalem get the designation "expert"? 10 articles on PubMed, mostly speculative. JFW | T@lk 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It is bogus to claim that coverage in the NY Times does not count for notability because the "just lazily copy press releases." They are a reputable newspaper whose editorial policy screens out non-notable press releases. See WP:RS and WP:N. Edison 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
        • So the question comes back: on what grounds is this researcher labeled "prominent"? Getting published in Med Hypoth is not equal to being prominent! JFW | T@lk 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
          • As a scientist there is no notability but as an author there is, but the book is not released why not delete the page, once the book is published someone else can take it upon themselves to write a page if they are so inclined Evoluu 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • what in the study of evolution is not speculative? User_talk:Evolu
  • Weak Delete I'm not sure a single mention in the NYT assures notability. --Wildnox(talk) 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jayden.Edison 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 10 Pubmed cites, one of which is an erratum. I'd bet JFW has more than that! This page is vanity and a clear delete -- Samir धर्म 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I suppose that is a compliment. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The following is a quote from Notability (people): “Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person” Included in that list is the following: “Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.” This criterion alone qualifies Dr Moalem for inclusion in Wikipedia as an author, based on the three independent reviews of his books linked from the list below:
Reviews:
Rebuttal to some comments above:
  • The mention above of 500 plus Google hits is low is not accounting for the quality and content of the discussions within the Google hits; furthermore, Google hits are not meant to be an exclusionary criterion, but a support for inclusion in some cases. There is no specific number within the guidelines to justify that any threshold must be reached to attain notability.
  • There is so much discussion on the web about this man that the allegation of this being a vanity article is absurd.
  • The editor nominating this article for deletion is judging the quality of the subject's work; this is offering a non-supported subjective opinion, which is inappropriate at Wikipedia.
  • The nominator cites the Professor Test as grounds for delete, however, the subject qualifies on his sataus as a notable author -- he doesn't have to pass both tests. --Kevin Murray 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

--Kevin Murray 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider either of the first two "reviews" to be independent, considering the obvious COI. Any website that is trying to sell you a book will call its advertisement a "review" but it is hardly unbiased. Now, I'm not trying to imply that only negative reviews qualify, but I don't feel that an advertisement counts as a review. If an impartial (no COI) source reviewed the book, that would qualify, but an advertisement is simply an advertisement. SWAdair | Talk 11:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
*After rereading SWAdair's comment about the reviewers selling books thus having conflicts of interest, I went back to Bookstandard and Kircus sites - they are independent sources which sell their reports either through subscription or individually. There are ads at the sites, but the sites don't directly sell the books from what I've seen --Kevin Murray 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*I think that SWAdair is spliting hairs. This isn't a murder trial here. We as part time volunteers should be reasonable and not be forcing each other to visit the library daily to support notability with printed material, when online commercial sources reprint reviews, this should be sufficient. Why spend all this effort to disinclude what may be notable -- let's err toward inclusion with accuracy. --Kevin Murray 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The google test seems to be a circular series of references in this instance. There seems to be no evidence from related professional organizations or by virtue of a note-worthy trail of speaking engagements that he hold a position of notariety. The book for which he recieves most hits seems not to be of much importance either in his field or within pop-culture. Are there any evolutionary biologists hanging around that would like to explain why I'm wrong with my impression?Droliver 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Droliver seems to be critiqing the work of the subject (primary reseach) rather than evaluating notability using WP guidelines. We are judging whether the article's writer has supported notability. Whether Droliver thinks the work is meaningful is irrelevant. If Moalem's books only received poor reviews he would still be notable as an "author". Notability and admirabilty are not the same. --Kevin Murray 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the introductory paragraph to more accurately reflect his notability as an author rather than a leader in medical research "Sharon Moalem is a recognized author and researcher in the field of evolutionary medicine. Though notable as an author, there is little published evidence that he is yet recognized as a leader among his peers. There is some critisism of his published theories regarding diabetes as being "junk science." --Kevin Murray 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As above the book has not been released then he can not be considered an author yet in my mind. As for the field of evolutionary medicine, I don't think it even qualifies as a field yet since I could not find it as a recognized field of study at any leading university Evoluu 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JFW and Droliver. Specifically, Moalem's record fails to meet either WP:Bio or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Recommend related trimming of the bibliography section of Evolutionary medicine, where Moalem has been added and linked to three times and inserted second in line as one of "the most prominent scientists" in the field. If Moalem's record matched that of the other "most prominent scientists" listed there, this would be an obvious keep. Unfortunately, Moalem does not appear to meet our criteria for notability. I'm trying to AGF, but it is difficult not to see this as promoting a soon-to-be-released book by Sharon Moalem. SWAdair | Talk 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • SWAdair, are you seeing him as being on the Grassy Knoll as well? Are you allegingg that Wikipedia editors have conspired to promote his book. Let's stick to the facts here and cease being so judgemental. --Kevin Murray 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes there is some puffery at Evolutionary medicine. I tagged for NPOV, asked for citations at the paragraphs, and editied-out some of the more blatant issues. Clearly influenced by a Moalem disciple. But that is irrelevant to this article. --Kevin Murray 00:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Sharon_Moalem_011e.html"