Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Brown Emeagwali


 * 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. Seems like the consensus is that notability isn't demonstrated due to concerns about the reliability of many sources. Bearian's comments did not get much commentary, but it doesn't seem like they'd be sufficient by WP:NPROF standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Dale Brown Emeagwali

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not really sure what to make of this one. The subject doesn't seem near meeting WP:NPROF, and the awards claimed in the text don't seem like they'd normally indicate notability. I don't have access to the first ref (Encyclopedia of World Scientists) but from the GBooks search it looks like she really is included in that. Is that enough to meet WP:GNG? I'm not sure. As a caution there is some weirdness about her spouse's tendency to extreme self-promotion. Not sure how that influences coverage (or how much we care), but figured I'd warn you before you start Googling the family... Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - The other ref is this from blackpast.org, which seems to draw from an encyclopedia.com article, which is pretty intensely praise-y, but says it got some of its info from the subject herself... so I don't know... Ajpolino (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep : she is included in the African Americans in Science: An Encyclopedia of People and Progress (Carey ref, to which I've now added link and isbn), and this ref I've just added shows her being held up as a role model for schoolchildren. Pam  D  16:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to have doubts. The article was created, complete with references and wikilinks, by an editor who contributed nothing else before or since. I can find no trace of a "Scientist of the Year" award from the "National Technical Society": the National Technical Honor Society honours students, not academics, but currently has no award of this name, and googling for "scientist of the year" national technical society doesn't show other people getting this honour. A lot of this article begins to look strange. I'd really like to see a reliable 1996 source for that "Scientist of the Year" award, if anyone can find one through Internet Archive or whatever.  Pam  D  17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And the source which Carey provides as "References and further reading" is apparently a self-published biography (which I can't find in the Internet Archive): I got as far as this page which invites scientists to send their own biography. Pam  D  17:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep- She is also included in Contemporary Black Biography (see ). Problems with formatting or tone can be fixed through editing (and discussed on the talk page). Thsmi002 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that as well. I'm not familiar with the source, but something isn't quite right with it. Unless she publishes under some other name (besides her married or maiden name) she just isn't a "renowned microbiologist". She's a long way from meeting the notability guideline for academics, so should we include her biography here per WP:GNG? It seems odd to say "she's a notable academic because sources call her a renowned microbiologist", even though we can see clearly she is not. On the other hand, the whole point of WP:GNG is that we follow the sources. So I'm not sure. That's why I brought this here. Thanks for your input. Ajpolino (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - This is weird. The entry in African Americans in Science: An Encylopedia of People and Progress similarly sells her as someone who has made huge contributions to microbiology and cancer biology, when I just can't find any evidence that's true. I'm not sure these sources are reliable. Sorry for all the text. Thoughts from anyone else, or do I just have a screw loose here? Ajpolino (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a confusing situation for sure but there is ultimately no evidence that the subject is anywhere near meeting WP:NPROF. Not by publications and not by awards. A keep on GNG grounds would put us in an impossible situation. Haukur (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - her career trajectory, if anything, makes her unusual - she started at UWyo, and rose to much more prestegious universities. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Something does not smell right here. There are substantial claims of scientific achievement, but the sourcing goes to a dead link. Cannot confirm claims through a quick search of the primary scientific literature. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Found the paper in GS on her main claimed discovery in S Parvulus listed under an earlier name (that paper is also in the WP source list in this article). This paper from 1980 has 21 citations. It appears the notability of her work is overstated and suggests that the write-ups in works like African Americans in Science are unreliable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. A quick look does indeed strongly suggest that these specialty encyclopedia articles are unreliable, eg. this one from "Black Past": In 1986 she and her collaborators proved that S.parvulus, a strain of Streptomycetes, synthesized isozymes of kynurenine formamidase. This discovery helped to change the field of microbiology... Besides getting the year wrong, ~20 citations on a paper from the 1980s is far short of changing the field of microbiology. It appears there is a large literature overstating the contributions of this individual. Agricola44 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see how any of the article content suggests that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NPROF.  For example, all four scientific publications listed in the Selected Works section are from years when Emeagwali's role is described as either "research associate" or "assistant research scientist".  In those roles, a scientist is essentially contributing to their supervisor/advisor's research program.  Accomplishments described in the article are consistent with those of a staff scientist rather than of someone in a scientific leadership role.  Deli nk (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2019 (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.