Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra A. Brock


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Debra A. Brock

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This scientist seems very unlikely to satisfy any of the notability criteria (WP:NACADEMIC); I don't think being first author of a Nature paper is cutting the mustard by itself. - Feel free to prove me wrong; I'm feeling a little bad about this because the editor is clearly doing their best to produce an informative article about their work group leader, and in a proficient manner. They are also about to embark on a WikiEd programme, and having your stuff deleted before you even get going on the class project must suck. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speaking as the author and thus perhaps biased, I feel as though she has much more accomplishments that obviously in the span of two days of edits I have not been able to detail just yet. Her position as one of the main researchers in the Queller Strassmann Research Group puts her in a position where her research is at the forefront of the field. Just her thesis alone which describes the ability for Dictyostelium discoideum to farm bacteria is a huge discovery for symbiotic relationships. She has also been doing her research for multiple decades and so I think that her contribution to the study of the social amoeba along with the backing of the research group and the long list of her works give her enough standing as a notable scientist. - RV_Mather 28 January 11:19


 * It doesn't really work that way, though. A long list of publications is not sufficient in itself. If you have a look at the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, what is needed is independent public acknowledgement of great influence in the field; this usually comes in the form of honours received, coverage of the person in articles and books, etc. It does not appear that these are present here, by my estimation. - You might do Prof Brock's contributions better service by making good use of her scientific findings in writing articles, as I suspect you intend to do. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources indicate notability. The lede is just a list of degrees and a lab where she worked. Awards is just a grant with a list of publications, and the current research is just a link to basic primary studies. Nothing that qualifies for WP:PROF beyond someone who became a non-professor scientist and published. Seeing as the article creator has a WP:COI, their edits would pretty much be entirely deleted anyways, which would blank the page. This subject is also a post-doc, where the bar would be even higher for notability I'd think. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability standards mentioned above. Cannot be improved to the point where that can be addressed. South Nashua (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A GS h-index of 16 is nowhere near enough to pass WP:Prof in a very highly cited field. Off to a good start but WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. Notability standards referenced above are irrelevant. Great influence in the field is not only recognized in the form of honors, and it is presumptuous to assume that only the most titled scientists have made the most progress in their respective fields. Clearly Brock has more than enough references to back up her contributions to symbiosis study, (there are plenty of other existing pages out there with far less), and the fact that she is a post-doc shouldn't take away from the importance of her work. Women in science struggle enough as it is, not having a faculty title does not discredit the significance of the advancements she's made.Ardcosta (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This scientist does in fact meet one of the notability criteria (WP:NACADEMIC), specifically Criterion 1. Her research discovering "farming" behavior in the unicellular eukaryote Dictyostelium discoideum is arguably a significant discovery given that she and her work were featured in notable scientific media, such Nature Podcasts and Science Magazine, and in popular media, such as BBC, Wired, and USA Today. Her work has been cited 77 times since 2011 and has even been referenced in published texts. Regarding her authorship, Nature, Nature Communications, Development, Genes and Development, and PNAS are all high quality journals in which she has published, which boosts her notability. Also, her h-index of 16 is very good given that she doesn't have her own lab and is absolutely comparable to new professors.Ericapryu (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. According to criterion 1 of Wikipedia's notability criterion, a person can be considered "notable" if he or she has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique, or idea, made a significant discovery, or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. This can also be more than one important bit of work. If you utilize resources such as google scholar you can see all of Debra's statistics in terms of her "notability" as an author. She has over 682 citations, an h-inex of 16, and an i10-index of 20 which is above average for most scientists. Her farming paper alone received 77 citations and one of which she did in the Gomer lab has almost one hundred citations. For references, a majorly popular paper obtains a couple to a few hundred. The impact that Debra has had on the Dictyostelium field has been nothing but class-leading and although her name may not be as prominent in the general field of biology, her work definitely distinguishes her. RV_Mather (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The prior 3 "keeps" appear to be from undergraduates from the same institution as the subject and who work either for her or at least with her and, additionally, who are members of this WP project run by the lab to which the subject belongs. Agricola44 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for your sharp eyes. The three Keeps should have declared a WP:COI. Xxanthippe (talk).


 * Keep. There's been a lot of smoke blown in the keep !votes so far. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but please bear in mind that this isn't our first rodeo: the notability guideline for academics are designed to give us a lot of latitude in keeping academics with notable work wouldn't otherwise stand a chance of meeting Wikipedia's standard criteria for inclusion. That long-standing consensus is unlikely to be swayed by special pleading in this case. With that said, I do think there's a case to be made that Brock's discovery of amoeba "farming" bacteria meets WP:PROF. It was published in Nature, and while the number of citations is surprisingly low (77 cites in 6 years) it's still respectable, and it was very widely reported on in the popular science press: . Most of these articles quote Brock extensively. However, if kept, the article would need a thorough rewrite to remove the overt promotionalism in its current version. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If the discovery is all that wonderful this will, in the fullness of time, be confirmed by citations. WP:Not a crystal ball. Until then- WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC).
 * What I'm contending is that the 70 or so citations it has racked up, and more pertinently significant coverage in multiple reliable popular science periodicals, is enough to demonstrate that it is a notable discovery. Although I admit that it's definitely marginal relative to our usual standard. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 70 citations is nowhere near enough to demonstrate a notable discovery. Several thousand would be more persuasive. The mentions in popular journals are just churnalism applied the the area of science; this is becoming increasingly frequent. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Oh? All of these pieces look substantially different to me, and none seem to be based on a press release. Sometimes you do see that kind of thing, but we're talking about Scientific American, Science, the BBC, the New York Times, etc., here. They're high quality sources. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've had a chance to take a proper look at this case and found the following. Her citation record is as indicated above, h-index of 16, which, although we often take as borderline, must be judged in light of a number of other mitigating factors. First, biology and the biomedical sciences are among the highest citation fields and her sum total of ~500 is not at all out of the ordinary for researchers in these fields. Moreover, all of Dr. Brock's highest cited articles, shown at GS, appear to represent work done either as a technician or a grad student under the direction of senior faculty, first Richard Gomer and later Joan E. Strassmann. We defer to seniority here in that we recognize that such papers are not the independent contributions of the student. Though Brock has been involved in science for decades, it seems she only recently earned her doctorate and is currently a postdoc in Strassmann's lab. I think Xxan's assessment of WP:TOOSOON is spot on. Agricola44 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. Notability per WP:PROF not yet evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is my opinion on this: https://sociobiology.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/is-wikipedia-anti-intellectual-compare-athletes-to-academics-and-the-answer-is-yes/ Agelaia (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that standards of notability for athletes are so low is no reason to lower them for scientists. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Re "I feel passionately that in the best world, Wikipedia would cover all scientists" from your blog: are scientists somehow more deserving or worthy of coverage than people in other professions? Or, do you simply want Wikipedia to be a gargantuan directory of all of humanity? I think you have to be very careful in flippantly throwing around accusations of anti-intellectualism. WP certainly has its many and significant problems, but a notability threshold for academics that is too high is certainly not one of them. Agricola44 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC).


 * Delete. much too soon--a better judgememt will be possible in a few years.  DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason to delete this piece. The researcher is at a top university, gives talks all over the world, has discovered something really important and keeps doing so. I fail to understand this judgement. Completely.Agelaia (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please allow me an attempt at clarification then. Like you, many of the panelists here are accomplished scientists and know how the scientific process works. Your own website lists Brock as a postdoc in your lab, indicating she works under your direct supervision rather than independently. Consequently, your claim that Brock's discoveries are wholly and immediately attributable to her would seem to pose quite a burden of proof, especially in light of your own binding rules for your grads & postdocs that includes: Do not begin a project without a careful plan approved by the PIs. Although most investigators are not quite so formal with this, everyone understands that science, especially experimental science runs according to this "chain of command" for junior people. The other bits, like giving talks, are what all scientists do, so these activities in and of themselves do not demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Is there actually a guideline that shows a consensus for this "chain of command" argument or are you making it up as you go along? As far as I can tell all WP:PROF requires is that the subject has authored a highly cited work, which Brock has, and/or that they have made a significant discovery, and we have multiple reliable sources that attribute the farming amoeba discovery to Brock. It's not up to us to second-guess the norms of scientific attribution. Your contention that Brock cannot claim the credit for papers she is the (first) author of or discoveries she is widely described as making, just because she had a supervisor at the time (who doesn't?), smacks of WP:OR to me. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Making it up" – sigh. This is the way that academic science research works and any arrangement to the contrary would be highly atypical. Importantly, the burden of proof would be on any junior claiming that they operate independently in terms of funding, research idea/design/etc (though not so much on the actual execution of the experiments, which is typically the (assigned) responsibility of the grad/postdoc). Hence, my statement that the burden lies with Drs. Strassmann and Brock and, to repeat what I just said, Strassmann's own published rules indicate that hers is a conventional lab where juniors operate under her direction. Moreover, the main claim in the article says the discovery was part of her dissertation. I hope your next request will not be for me to furnish a source saying that grad students likewise do their research under the direction of an advisor. Agricola44 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC).
 * WP:INVALIDBIO is also relevant here. BLPs don't gain notability by proxy. They need to have standalone notability. This person hasn't done things on their own as a researcher yet (or specifically is a primary investigator as her advisors would have been). The notability on the amoeba papers goes to her advisors in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the norms of attribution in the scientific community, but they are just that: a matter for the scientific community. The farmer amoeba discovery has clearly been attributed to Brock as she is the first author of the paper and cited as the discoverer in numerous reliable sources ( so nobody is arguing for notability by proxy). It's not up to us to question that attribution. Your assertion that the credit instead goes to her supervisor, Joan Strassman, is particularly absurd given that Professor Strassman is here, in this discussion, telling us that Brock made the discovery! But I supposed I should not be surprised that someone who considers themselves a higher authority on scientific legitimacy than Nature and Elsevier also thinks they're a higher authority on attribution than the actual authors of a paper... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You should think twice about holding up the Sa'id article as any kind of moral example. The establishment gave that person a major science award for publishing some high-school level "research" in a well-known junk science journal, either because somebody on the committee did not bother to vet the work or because there were larger socio-political factors at play. We should be embarrassed to be carrying this mistake forward. Any working scientist will recognize that nonsense, just as she would recognize the fact that postdocs work under the supervision of their advisors. Whatever goes on in the outside world, we inside of WP cannot acquiesce to fakery. Agricola44 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Most of what you said is irrelevant here. The way student-advisor publications work is that the student is the first author, but it's the advisor who gets the credit, etc. as if they were the first author when it comes to contact, press, notability, etc. in the real world (for better or worse, but that's how the system works). If this were a bunch of a scientists without a student-advisor aspect, then you default to the first author. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That certainly isn't how it works in my field, nor is it what Strassman herself (the senior author) says below, nor is it what multiple press sources have said regarding the discovery. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Strassmann seems to be somewhat more conscientious than the average PI in promoting her postdocs, but the fact remains that, in Strassmann's own words, hers is a conventional biology lab where postdocs work under her supervision. It's really as simple as that. Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC).


 * Note to closer. Upon further review, it appears all the keep votes (excluding Joe Roe's) are in violation of WP:COI and cannot be used in assessing WP:CONSENSUS here. Each of the other keeps have provided information indicating they are directly affiliated with Strassman. It's starting to look like a pretty clear case for a delete at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain how there's "violation COI" here as I see nothing to show anyone is connected here, I know for certain I myself am not. SwisterTwister   talk  04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See here re all but Joe Roe's Keep !votes. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The undeclared COI is that RV_Mather, Ericapryu, and Ardcosta are students who either work for or directly with the subject in the same lab and Agelaia is the head of the lab, i.e. the subject's boss. Seems that the off-line canvassing has stopped since the COI was discovered. Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC).
 * To be fair, I'm quite sure there was no sneaky intent involved and they just weren't familiar with the COI rules hereabouts. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my observation of canvassing (which there clearly was) made no statement regarding intent. I'm not sure it matters terribly, but you are probably right. Indeed, I think the page itself was created without any real awareness of WP notability requirements, which is why we're all here in the first place. Unfortunately, there are growing numbers of such classes and agenda-based meetups where budding editors are urged-on, but then turned loose without much appreciation of the norms & guidelines. Agricola44 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Agree that there is no bad faith in this case, but note that such conduct often reflects poorly on the reputation of the institution involved. The instructor responsible should take note. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Does WP:COI actually prohibit editors with a COI from participating in deletion discussions or suggest that their arguments be discounted? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, describing this as an undisclosed COI seems a tad unfair when each of their user pages clearly identify that they're associated with either Brock or Strassman (via her WikiEd course). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally when an editor has a COI, they are expected to bring up edits they would like to have done on the talk page, but their opinions are not used in assessing consensus. It's the uninvolved or non-COI editors that are used to weight consensus. The same standards would apply here (for those of us that work with COI, the class webpage isn't quite enough for disclosure, but the main issue was them coming here without ever mentioning it). What really matters for the COI though is the link to canvassing. Whether they were aware of our norms at Wikipedia or not is a valid question, but this is a pretty standard case of where COI invalidates their votes in the matter either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as unconvincing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister   talk  04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This has been a hard case. However there is clearly not a high enough level of citation to pass prong 1 of the academics test and nothing else comes close. The argument that the subjects work got attention in the scientific press ignores we need coverage of the person to pas GNG. This is not significant coverage of the person at a level to pass GNG, so we need to delete this article. This person may well one day be a notable academic, but they are not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. talk makes a persuasive case. Edwardx (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (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.