Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Wild


 * 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. Minus the sock(s), only one editor is for "keep".  Sandstein  12:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Edward Wild

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a WP:BLP of a biomedical scientist who is on the borderline of notability, and who may well become clearly notable in the future. He is a physician who does research on Huntington's disease. He has done public outreach and been interviewed a few times within programs about the disease, but does not quite meet WP:GNG. WP:ACADEMIC indicates that working closely with a notable person does not confer notability, and that publication impact should be assessed in the context of the field of scholarship. Wild is a researcher in the laboratory group of Sarah Tabrizi, who is certainly notable. His most recent professional award is an MRC Scientist Fellowship, which is described as being for scientists at the career stage of "transition to independence". Thus, he is not an independent researcher conducting his own research program, but rather is at the stage of beginning to move towards such a position. The page draws attention to his winning of a 2015 "Insight of the Year" award, but an examination of the sources indicates that the citation in Nature Reviews Neurology is about the Tabrizi group as a whole, and the 2015 award is given by a small study group that focuses on Huntington's and was given to multiple people of whom Wild is just one. By general standards, his publications have been cited very highly, in a manner that would typically pass WP:ACADEMIC quite easily. However, in the context of the area of study, it is worth comparing the citations for Wild,, with those of Tabrizi, , because it is a field where papers get very large citation numbers, and in context, Wild is cited far less than Tabrizi. Wild's most cited work is a chapter in a book co-written by Tabrizi, and all of his other top publications are as a member of the Tabrizi lab. Furthermore, most of his cited works are multi-author studies involving large research teams, and he is listed as neither the lead nor senior member of the team – Tabrizi is. Consequently, his citation numbers are only as a member of Tabrizi's large research team, and he is not yet quite at the level of attaining recognition independently of her. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although apparently I accepted this at AfC in April (I can't remember it at all, must be losing my marbles) on balance I would say it's WP:TOOSOON for Dr Wild. I think it's fair to say he hasn't made a significant impact in his field independently of his very large research group, and none of the other WP:PROF criteria seem to apply. There's the odd mention in the media, but not enough to satisfy the GNG. So my !vote is to delete while acknowledging the strong possibility that he will be considered notable in a few year's time. Joe Roe (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete neither his academic activites or his public outreach have risen to the level of notability. They may someday, but they have not yet at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination is based on a highly selective representation of Dr Wild's position and an over-stringent reading of WP:PROF:
 * 1) WP:PROF does not call for the parsing of author lists for seniority -- simply being "an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" is sufficient per se for notability. He clearly qualifies on this criterion: Dr Wild has 53 such publications, many highly cited.
 * 2) The article could do a better job of setting out the three "significant new concept[s], technique[s] or ideas" (WP:PROF again) with which Dr Wild is identified: "He described a novel pathogenic pathway of immune activation in Huntington’s"; "he published the first successful detection and quantification of mutant huntingtin protein (the known cause of Huntington’s) in human cerebrospinal fluid"; and "He has also published novel genetic causes of 'phenocopy' syndromes that mimic Huntington's disease." He is first author on the publications relating to these discoveries.
 * 3) The nomination's analysis of the 'Huntington's Disease' book chapter is misleading - Prof Tabrizi is one of three co-editors of the book (the book is not "authored" by her) but Dr Wild was first author of a 2-author chapter. This is the most widely cited book in the field and being a chapter author is clear evidence of prominence in that field. 13 of its 17 chapters have more than one author.
 * 4) The notability comparison with Prof Tabrizi is artificial and unnecessary. Not all notable people are equally notable. He can be less notable than Prof Tabrizi but still notable. He simply has to meet one or more of the criteria in WP:PROF. The nomination wrongly paints Dr Wild as just one member of a large research group - in fact he is one of only two principal researchers in that group, leading at least one multinational study as chief investigator. Thus, he clearly is "an independent researcher conducting his own research program" as the nomination suggests is necessary.
 * 5) The nomination dismisses the Huntington Study Group, which awarded Dr Wild its 2015 'Insight of the Year' prize, as "small" - it is in fact the largest network of Huntington's disease researchers in North America, representing over 400 researchers and 100 study sites. The nomination suggests a problem with the fact that such awards may be given to "multiple people" but in fact there is just one winner in each of four categories. It's not hard to think of other prestigious awards given to one winner in each of several categories. Again, the nomination sets a higher bar than WP:PROF or WP:GNG require.
 * 6) The nomination omits consideration of Dr Wild's 2014 'Researcher of the Year' award from the Huntington's Disease Society of America - an international award by the largest HD patient organisation in the world. Bear in mind that WP:PROF only requires one such award, and Dr Wild has two.
 * 7) Finally, the nomination's dismissal of Dr Wild's MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship is based on another misreading of WP:PROF, which says "significant academic awards and honors may include, for example ... highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships)". The MRC website makes it very clear that a Clinician Scientist Fellowship is senior to the postdoctoral level, as required by the guideline.
 * I ask only that editors use the actual criteria in WP:PROF, and Dr Wild's actual achievements, not on one very selective reading of them, in considering this proposal. Apologies that the lengthy nomination required such a lengthy rebuttal. Thanks. Braydonowen (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to note that Braydonowen is the creator of the page. I think that you misunderstand some things about the guideline:
 * Where you quote "an author" as opposed to "the author", you are quoting that from a note that expands on the main criterion, which is clearly not saying that any author counts. There are very high-impact studies in particle physics and gene sequencing, that have over a hundred authors. We would certainly have a page about the main leaders of the research teams, but we would not have one hundred pages covering every co-author.
 * We assess the importance or impact of new concepts based on secondary sources. In this case, the awards are consistent with a very accomplished member of a research team, as opposed to the leader of the team, and those papers are all written with Tabrizi.
 * Yes, there were co-editors of the book; I understand that. But it is the book as a whole that is highly cited, and not only for Wild's chapter within it. Wild is, as you indicate, just one of many contributors to the book. Is there really independent sourcing to indicate that this is the most widely cited book in the field, and how narrowly is the field defined for that characterization?
 * You provide two sources to indicate that Wild is not just another member of the Tabrizi group, but no one has argued that that is the case. The first source presents it like Tabrizi is the full-professor-equivalent investigator whereas Wild is the assistant-professor-equivalent investigator. The second source, the "multinational study", is like being the PI (principal investigator) on a grant. It does not support the contention that he is an investigator who is independent of the Tabrizi group.
 * The Society for Neuroscience has well over 30,000 members, so it's not like the Huntington's Study Group award really measures up to what WP:PROF calls "a highly prestigious award"; it's really an award from within a specialized field. The link showing winners does not support what you said about four winners in four separate categories. There are all kinds of awards for promising new scientists at early stages of their careers, but those do not satisfy the notability guideline.
 * The link you show for the American Disease Society's award shows him as a co-winner. And again, this isn't really at the level that WP:PROF is talking about.
 * Nowhere in the nomination did I argue that Wild is a post-doc. But he is not really an independent investigator either. He is senior to a post-doc, but junior to an investigator who is recognized for contributions that are independent of those of his doctoral advisor. When universities evaluate junior faculty for tenure, they generally disregard publications co-authored with the PhD and post-doc advisors, and look only at the candidate's publications after becoming completely independent.
 * I think everyone in the discussion here so far agrees that Wild is likely to become notable, so nobody is really "dismissing" his credentials. It's just that Wikipedia requires more for notability, and this is a case of WP:Too soon. WP:PROF says that it is what is sometimes called the "Average Professor Test" (not the "average lab member test"): does the page subject "stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than [other Professor-level researchers] in the field?" He simply isn't at that stage just yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Response
 * I'm quoting from the guideline. It could have said sole author, or senior author, or first author, but it doesn't. Scientists' publication records are not limited to first or senior author positions. Let's stick to the guideline.
 * OK, in this case, secondary sources would be the articles citing Dr Wild's work on these discoveries. They have 278 citations; 74 citations; 21 citations in 1 year. Dr Wild was first (i.e. "lead" author of these), satisfying even an overreading of the guideline per point 1.
 * The book has over a thousand citations and Dr Wild is an author, as the guideline requires.
 * WP:PROF has multiple criteria to indicate that being full Professor is not the only requirement. Your citation says "Wild is a researcher in the laboratory group of Sarah Tabrizi... he is not an independent researcher conducting his own research program". I am pointing out it would have been more correct to say "Wild is one of two senior researchers in one of the world's biggest Huntington's disease research groups, and is an independent researcher conducting his own research program."
 * Once again this is false equivalance. An award does not need to be from SfN or an organisation of any particular size in order to be a significant honour in a field. Moreover you've misread the page I cited; HSG's Insights Awards are for 1 author in each of 4 categories and are not specifically for junior researchers.
 * It is not relevant that Wild was one of two researchers awarded HDSA's researcher of the year. To coin an illustrative example, Nobel prizes are often co-awarded and that does not diminish their impact.
 * Again, Dr Wild is an independent investigator - and the guideline specifically has multiple criteria to indicate that tenure is not necessary for notability, but specifically enumerates that publication record, significant discoveries and awards count for notability. I ask only that editors follow the actual guideline. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 13:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Two quick points: At this point, the discussion is past being tl;dr, so I will just say that a correct reading of the guideline is that it is ultimately the "Average Professor Test". Second, I see that you messaged one editor about this AfD, who spoke favorably of this page at the guideline talk page, without messaging the other editors in that discussion. That's a violation of WP:Canvas, so please do not do that again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete i struggle with very fine readings of sub-guidelines like PROF when somebody just fails GNG. Wild is marginally notable right now at best.  I don't understand the urgency and passion to "keep".  It is WP:TOOSOON now; delete this and we can recreate the article when (and if) Wild is solidly notable. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that marginal notability is sufficient to keep. Braydonowen (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor said "at best". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per and WP:OUTCOMES. We have certainly kept scientists with a similar h-score of 25. We also tend to keep non-criminal adults with borderline notability. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. And WP:PROF says that h-scores are unreliable and that publications need to be considered in the context of the specific scientific field. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting response, as your nomination is largely based on an invalid comparison with another neuroscientist, i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Braydonowen (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's what you think, then you misunderstand what OTHERSTUFF is about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Both sides have cited policy. More eyes on this discussion might help. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Given that the top publication listed in his Google scholar profile is a book whose editors do not include him, I find it difficult to take his citation counts there at face value. And if one looks only at the first-authored papers (which by the way we frequently do at those academic deletion debates where author precedence has come into question) his citation counts are 85, 74, 72, 45, 43, 30, 22, 18, 17, 13, 11, for an unimpressive first-author-h-index of 11. The research accomplishments listed in the article, when they have no external validation, are of the form "he did this particular thing first" which is true (or should be true) of every research paper ever published. So the only things in the article which rise above all that are the "Insight of the Year" award (one of four that year) and his online and film advocacy work. I don't think that's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Great caution is needed here, as WP:PROF specifically advises against the use of H-indices and certainly doesn't support self-calculated indices of this kind. Even if they have been used in other discussions, per WP:OTHERSTUFF that is not a reason to use them here against the advice in the notability guideline. As noted above, the guideline specifically doesn't require consideration of first or senior author publications, saying instead that the person should be "an author" of widely cited publications. However, if we are going to look at this metric, let's at least do it properly and include J Exp Med 2008 (281 citations), J Proteome Res 2007 (138), Mov dis 2009 (44) and Neuron 2009 (25) where he is named as equal first author in the full-text article. (Equal first-author publications count as first author for the purpose of awarding tenure, per WP:PROF.) This gives a first-author H-index of 13 (going on 14), not 11. Note also that as the head of his own research group he is now producing publications as senior author (5 so far in 2016). Braydonowen (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not 11, but 13-going-on? You're trying way too hard.  E Eng  15:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF actually advises that h-indexes be "approached with caution", and that they are of limited usefulness. I think this case is one of those where they are useful, because the main point of contention is whether Wild's publication record shows significant impact on his discipline, independently of his research group. WP:PROF's two specific objections to h-indexes don't apply because a) you have shown yourself that including/excluding extra papers does not significantly change his h-index (and I for one fully trust to calculate it!) and b) in a high-citation field like medical research there's no dispute (?) that a h-index of 11–13 is unremarkable. Joe Roe (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. My concern is that without a formal, agreed policy on what the threshold for a first-author H-index should be in a discipline - given they will always be substantially lower than the raw value, in a very collaborative field - there is a risk that this approach could be used to dismiss many academics who do meet one or more of the explicitly stated criteria in WP:PROF. That is why I think it is best avoided altogether and his notability assessed according to WP:PROF per my responses to Tryptofish above. Braydonowen (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as well. I've been looking this over now for some time, and had come to the same conclusion as David Eppstein except that I lack the skill for a detailed analysis of his citation counts, so was going to ask someone to do that. But D.E.'s supplied that, so I have all I need. Like I said, delete (if weak).  E Eng  23:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note the related Articles for deletion/HDBuzz (re an online news platform founded by Wild) and the accusations of promotional behavior on that AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Riiiight, that certainly explains why this AfD has been so deluged with editors favouring keeping the article...Braydonowen (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Concern about canvassing. This talk-page interaction between User:EEng and User:Tryptofish appears amount to canvassing between two experienced editors that led to one weighing in on this discussion. Tryptofish refers to a previous discussion about this page but initially tries to avoid linking here, saying "it deals with a related kind of discussion, and a related kind of discussion was also discussed by me, and commented on by you, higher up on the same guideline talk page not too long ago. An administrator is asking for more eyes, in order to get a clearer consensus". After much insinuation, and discussion about what can be said without it amounting to canvassing, Tryptofish then links to this AfD page, fully knowing what EEng's position will be, since it is on record in the previous discussion - and despite EEng warning it is canvassing if Tryptofish directs him here, knowing his view in advance. EEng came here anyway and first chimed in about 2 hours after the exchange. To my inexpert eye, this appears to amount to canvassing to influence consensus towards delete. I don't mind at all if the page is deleted according to policy and fair play, but this feels very underhanded. Braydonowen (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your eye is indeed inexpert, since what I very clearly said at the discussion you link is that Tfish's invitation was NOT canvassing, he and I having a long history of divergent views on sundry things, and he cannot possibly have known what my opinion would be. That experienced editors are largely in agreement that this is a delete should tell you something.  E Eng  10:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. Tryptofish knew exactly what your view would be, since you expressed it clearly in the other discussion he initiated. That is clearly why he raised the issue on your page. Lo and behold, he was right about your opinion! Even if you don't feel canvassed, you were. I might add that it seems suspicious to me -- though I lack the wiki skills or time to prove anything not supported by an incoming link -- that several delete-favouring editors from that highly partial discussion suddenly turned up shortly after the AfD, lacking consensus, was relisted by MelanieN. Braydonowen (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I knew that Tfish is a neuroscientist, but I was unaware that his research into mind-reading had progressed to the point of efficacy. Good work Tryptofish!  E Eng  17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have conflicted feelings about this. After EEng had asked me to comment in an unrelated discussion, I made what was at the time an offhand comment about whether he might want to return the favor, without specifying anything about it. What I failed to anticipate was that our discussion ended up becoming extended, because EEng kept asking me for more details about what I meant, and I had ambivalent feelings about what might indeed come across as me canvassing. I apologize for the nature of the comments I left on EEng's talk, and I accept full responsibility for them; it's not the kind of thing I would normally do.


 * However, EEng stated very clearly in his initial comment here that he had already been watching this discussion, and considering how he would weigh in. And that was clearly before any communication from me. So at most, I speeded up a comment in this AfD that would have come soon after anyway. There was no mass-messaging, just some banter between EEng and me that got away from me. I never communicated in any way with David Epstein or with anyone else. Braydonowen is trying to make this sound like a lot more than what it really is, in a WP:BATTLEGROUND-y way. If you really think that there is an ongoing issue here, then WP:ANI is that-a-way.


 * And something else. I noted above that Dubbin had explicitly canvassed the one editor in the WT:PROF discussion who believed that this page should be kept. Here's the diff; compare the specificity, considering that multiple editors took part in the previous discussion, but only one was contacted: . I made a brief comment to cut it out, but I did not make a big display of it, as Braydonowen did here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Too much time wasted defending, Tfish. We're both respected editors (well, you are at least) and no one's going to believe this canvassing nonsense.  E Eng  00:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note. Dubbin and Braydonowen have been found by a checkuser to be the same person. Dubbin has been blocked for one month, and Braydonowen has been blocked indefinitely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Surprise!  E Eng  23:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is so sad. Really. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I take no pleasure in this. This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel discouraged about Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't you think there are pricks here just like anywhere else? What confounds me is that they think we're dumb enough that they can get away with it.  E Eng  00:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. After having watched this AfD debate for some time I have come to the conclusion that notability is not yet established. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2016 (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.