Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Rebar


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  10:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Edward Rebar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only sources I can find that mention this person are press releases. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. His work has generated numerous citations per a Google Scholar search. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've haven't looked enough to cast my own comprehensive !vote, but aren't most of these cases where the subject was buried within the long list of coauthors? This wouldn't seem to satisfy C1. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The citation in the article suggest he was the lead. It states that "over the last 20 years he has led the development of the Company's zinc finger protein platform." Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

*Keep. In the articles listed in both Google Scholar and Nature, he is, in fact, one of many authors, never the lead. However, he has biographical information (more than in the article) on OMICS International, a database of over 700 peer reviewed, open access articles. Also, The Scientist, a peer reviewed life sciences magazines mentions an article Rebar wrote for Nature Medicine, where he is listed as lead author. He is also quoted twice in the article. I think his article should be linked to the article on Zinc Fingers and, if it exists, Sangamo Therapeutics.
 * Delete I thought more about this last night and realized he really doesn't have enough mention in secondary sources to keep the article (and one source I quoted isn't reliable, as mentioned below). Aurornisxui (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI, OMICS online is the epitome of predatory publishing, so anything from them should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Natureium (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Aurornisxui (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are not required to meet WP:ACADEMIC.Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG.  Uninvited Company 21:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:ACADEMIC is a separate from WP:GNG. From the sheer number of citations of publications he is associated with, I believe he meets ACADEMIC#1.Thsmi002 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Four of his publications have over 1000 citations each. Clear pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the best cited papers he's rarely the corresponding author. For the others he seems to be acting in his capacity as chief technology officer for Sangamo Therapeutics. It's an unusual situation, companies don't tend to publish many papers in the first place but I've never seen one where the head of R&D appeared to be putting his name on everything going out.--Project Osprey (talk) 10:38, 4 January 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.