Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Sheehy


 * 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 redirect to APOBEC3G. Tizio 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ann Sheehy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

am nominating his article fo deletion. The Notabillity criteria holds that "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability."

As a quick google search finds, the only entries relevant to the object of this topic are the persons own professional homepage, departmental homepage, and her publications. There is no record of notabillity or record to support the derivation of this article, ie, that she is credited with discovering APOBEC3G, other than that she's the primary author of the original paper. A search of notable profiles in Nature describes APOBEC3G as the most famous work of somebody called Michael Malim. There is however mention of Ann Sheehy as his post-doctoral fellow. On the above criteria, I think the article should be deleted as it is both factually wrong and does not satisfy Notabillitycriteria Dudewheresmywallet 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Scienter 14:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Low notability, not meeting WP:BIO. Telly addict  17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet Notabillity or factual criteria.--Paloma Walker 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to APOBEC3G unless anything to indicate she's notable for anything else is added by the end of this AfD - Irides centi  17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Iridescenti. --Aarktica 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Iridescenti. Discovering one protein doesn't automatically establish notability. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Week keep. Seems to be an important discovery. The article needs expanding, though. Garcia-Fons 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep She is only an assistant professor, and they are not always N unless the work is particularly N. With respect to that, "no record ... that she is credited with discovering APOBEC3G, other than that she's the primary author of the original paper" is a rather remarkable assertion. Post Doc advisors and their Associates often can reasonably  claim joint credit.  But she has published 10 papers in 5 years, all in the very highest quality journals,  and with the highest ones having, respectively, 260, 165, and 90 times. I've added them. I think that's very high counts for this stage in the career, and reflects the notability of the discovery. DGG 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As above, she has a promising career. Gareth E Kegg 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Response I am not sure whether the promise of her career is a suitable ground or criteria to be entered into wikipedia. As DGG says, she is only an assistant proffessor. She is not notable in that she is not famous, either for APOBEC3G, or any other work. She maybe a very good proffessor and researcher, but I think you will find there are hundreds of Professors and researchers and scientists all over the world doing important work. They are not notable.
 * Re: "no record ... that she is credited with discovering APOBEC3G, other than that she's the primary author of the original paper" is a rather remarkable assertion," I do not assert it, I have provided a link from the journal Nature which describes the work as the most famous achievement of a Michael Malim, and describes Sheehy as his Post-doctoral fellow. Per my knowledge, I would imagine that Sheehy was probably involved extensively in the ground work and (probably a lot of)intellectual input, but the thinking, designing, conducting, supervision, and interpreting the experiment was probably by done Malim. Primary authorship of a paper is merely indicative of the author having carried majority of the ground work.
 * Re: She has published 10 papers in 5 years in high quality journals. This is not ground for notabillity or fame. Again going back to above argument, there are a number of people doing high quality research who have found their work published in high quality journals this very month. It is the implications of the results, and their associations with the achievement of results. APOBEC3G is described by Nature and other search engines as such. However, we cannot decide wether or not Sheehy should be credited with discovering APOBEC3G, and have to rely on external credible sources. Searching Google with "APOBEC3G, Ann Sheehy" gives this result among which the first is a citation of the original paper from her own homepage, and the rest are departmental homepages, wikipedia (or mirror website) entries, or subsequent publication citations. I have already provided a search of profiles from Nature with "Nature profile, Ann Sheehy" as criteria. The result points to a profile of Michael Malim and not to one of Ann Sheehy. Lastly, I have done an additional search of "APOBEC3G, Michael Malim", the results are more comprehensive, in particular, there is a feature from News@Nature. Without taking away any credit from Sheehy for her work guys, I think she's not yet as famous as to deserve a Wikipedia article, nor is she credited as much for APOBEC3G as the article would have us believe.Dudewheresmywallet 13:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- Did anybody try a more specific Google search? I added the first two suitable references I found with independent bylines to the article. This should satisfy WP:BIO (if not, add more). There is plenty of WP:V material from WP:RS available online. If there is a dispute about a fact, that is a content issue that should be solved by normal editing, it is not a reason for deletion. This nomination is another example of deletionists run amok. Dhaluza 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete per above. Completely non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:BIO at all. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: What Dhaluza has provide above is nearly exactly the same search result as what I had provided earlier, ie,

The points of contention are:
 * Her Own professional Home page.
 * The Wikipedia entry on Ann Sheehy.
 * A number of scientific papers (original publications or reviews).
 * One article from International aids vaccing intiative that notes the potential importance of the APOBEC3G protein. It does however note Sheehy played an important part in identifying the protein, but also noted this was a prior ongoing work.
 * There are no other mention of notabillity.
 * Regarding WP:BIO- She is not (at least not yet), (per above search results in Google, which only finds her own own pages, publications, and institution pages and is not mentioned in any biographical or news article, as opposed to a different individual with regards to the same discovery). She is therefore not notable. By all means, if this changes in the future, I will change my opinion. Regarding her work and notabillity: (per WP:BIO); it states that;

"Creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.-The paper co-authored by Sheehy and others is cited, yes, Sheehy is not. No newspaper,online or journal article regarding Ann Sheehy has been located yet.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.- Closest it come to attributing the origination of the theory, concept, whatever you call it is to a different person.
 * The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.- Not sure of APOBEC3G yet falls into this category. In addition to the argument of the preceding point re:newpaper,journal and online articles, APOBEC3G does not yet seem that significant. Certainly not like DNA, MRI,Mass spectrometry,Vaccine. It does have the potential to, though.
 * The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.- Again, it doesn't satisfy the first and last, and the middle is very tight to be fitted in. The original paper certainly has found quite a few citations, but it might peter out. Lastly, by calling it her paper, we're saying she did the work (the work that hasn't really become that noted yet, except for it's potential in HIV scientists), where as nowehere does it credit her (alone) (the HIV vaccine page does say, as I had said before, that she did to the ground work, and indicates that she was involved in intellectual input)."


 * Regarding WP:V. She is verifiable because she has authored some published papers. So has Masahiro Yamashita,W.C Haxton,L Ostrovsky(I could go on), and you will find numerous citations for them.
 * Re:WP:RS, of course they are reliable because they're journal articles. Doesn't mean it is encyclopaedically notable. Eg, Ajay Nahata has had a publication in the current issue of Nature (p157), Karen Ardt has had quite afew notable publications, including in "The Cell", "Molecular Cell Biology", " Molecular Biology of the Cell", "Genetics" working in Ubiquitination and in fungi, and she's pretty well known in her field.

The bottom line is I think APOBEC3G qualifies as notable within the WP:Science category and does deserve an article. But it's discovery has not made it's discoverers as famous yet to merit an article in WP.Dudewheresmywallet 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the improvements by DGG and Dhaluza (see diff). We ought to judge her notability based on other academics in the biological sciences.  The fact is that, in that field, there are few (if any) academics who have published major papers on their own (the cost of biological research is highly prohibitive to such a venture).  Almost everything is coauthored.  I believe the present information in the article ensures that she meets WP:PROF.  -- Black Falcon 18:43, 1 April 2007 (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.