Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleni Antoniadou


 * 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  13:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Eleni Antoniadou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An emerging academic that does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to cement consensus.
 * Comment – Below are some sources from a cursory search. North America1000 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Madame Figaro
 * Huffington Post
 * Neos Kosmos
 * Nature.com
 * Greek Reporter (short article)
 * Keep per NA1000. There is sufficient indicia of notability. She passes GNG combining academics and political work.  Montanabw (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  03:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Why is the nominator trying to delete her article based on secondary academic criteria? If she passes GNG, she is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The above sources show she passes GNG. In addition, she is also a Laureate of the Cartier Women's Initiative Awards for her work in transplants . She is also covered in the Independent and was on the Forbes 30 under 30 list Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sweet kate (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Ms. Antoniadou is definitely not an accomplished academic as she has no major publications (counted ~ 50 citations through Google scholar, also no scholar profile). She is also not an accomplished enterpreneur. Her company "Transplants Without Donors" is unclear if it ever existed. The only website I could find is this, which leads to a dead page here . No news or products of the company exist elsewhere on the web. She also seems to have switched to a political career. The majority of awards gathered by Ms. Antoniadou, which are cited by the wiki article, are related to being a woman start-up enterpreneur, which was evidently short-lived and unimportant. These are not awards about contributions to science or business. Magicheader (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, primarily for reasons cited by Megalibrarygirl. I do not consider a career change to be relevant to the deletion proposal; if she met GNG in the past for her previous endeavours, she does not lose notability. Agent 86 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG, but it's close. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. .The basic principle here is the policy NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The guideline WP:N is an explanation of it, showing the criteria we usually use. It makes no claims to be the criteria we always use. It's the policy that mattes.  And even the GNG says that meeting it is a presumption of notability, not proof of it. This is a good example of why that wording matters: The awards are meaningless unless they represent some actual accomplishment. they don't.UsingGNG fort someone who has never actually done anything notable is an absurd misuse of the criterion. Any number of citations about nothing still equals nothing. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm seeing a lot of editorial judgment in this discussion.  Who is in charge of deciding which awards "mean something", or are "actual accomplishments" and are therefore notable?  Doesn't the fact that an award was granted, and received significant coverage in reliable sources mean more than some editors' judgment that it was somehow unworthy?  Isn't that judgment original research rather than an objective measure of notability? Are we to give more importance to an editor's determination of importance rather than objective measures? This discussion is full of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, personal point of view arguments.Jacona (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, poor writing is not a reason to delete. Her technology was invented in 2009 and resulted in a successful transplant in 2013. GNG does not require that she be limited to some narrow definition of academic, it requires that she has been covered in RS over time. We don't define whether she is notable. Sources confirm whether she is noted. Forbes 30 under 30, Cartier Laureate, London Technology Awards confirm she meets GNG., , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -requesting relist There is more to here than meets the eye and I have sorted it into the medicine lit for editors to have a look. I had a look at the article history and it seems there have been repeated attempts to remove certain information. I am not sure what happened, but it would be interesting to dig deeper. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into why this removal was made. There is definitely something weird going on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * possibly the information was removed because it was a scientifically trivial single case report. Even if the BBC covers a minor accomplishment, it doesn't make it notable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep What's the issue here? She has numerous in depth news mentions, and was on the Forbes 30 under 30 list. There is zero doubt that basic notability exists, based on even the most cursory of searches. Statements above to the effect that "the awards are meaningless" advocate that editors should be (re)asessing the validity of awards given by notable institutions. Such a practice is similar to original reserch, in that is suggests Wikipedians can assess an award recipient better than the actual award-granting orgnanization. We are not here for that.  198.58.162.200 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Keep based on WP:GNG, but also a comment. Every delete vote seem to be WP:Wikilawyering based on NPOV. If I am ever told that I need an organ transplant, and I am searching WP for background and hope- this will be a very valuable article. WP is more not less! ClemRutter (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This kind of !vote is exactly why this article was ... well, toxic in the form it took when all these !keep votes were made. We are many years away from regular use of artificial organs.  Many.  Medicine is not like the tech industry and hype doesn't change the world in medicine - see Theranos.  See also Talk:Eleni_Antoniadou.    So if you are in actual medical trouble, there was nothing but rabbit holes here for you.   Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ,you do realize she has no plans to acquire a PhD or become a physician? You do realize there is nothing in the article, or in any of the references,  about actual organ transplants?  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Meets the notability guidelines and doesn't have a valid reason for deletion. --  Dane talk  02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly meets GNG.   Montanabw (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC) (note - this is a second !vote - see above. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC))
 * delete She has not actually done much science or business, and this article was full of pretty slick promotional content.  She is kind of pursing the celebrity scientist thing; appears to be famous for ...winning awards, which are generally not for actually scientific achievement but are more "science glamor" like the Cartier award.  I would say WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment on claims I realised that there have been multiple attempts to remove the information about the artificial trachea or either whitewash it. Clearly, somebody with a conflict of interest was removing it. On looking into this, I realised that there is a link with the Paolo Macchiarini case.
 * From thisIn 2011, she directly contributed to research that enabled the world’s first successful completely artificial organ transplant, helping to craft an artificial trachea for a 36-year-old late-stage cancer patient. This is obviously the same case in this article
 * There is another source (though a primary source) which mentions the patient by name. See this While in the medical school of the University College of London, I worked with my classmate Claire Crowley for Prof. Alexander Seifalian on the development of a tissue engineered trachea that was mimicking the properties of its real counterpart. This graduate project was the winner of the Translation to Clinic and to Commercialization of Nanotechnology Products Competition in UCL and was shortly after implanted into a 36 year old patient, Andemariam Teklesenbet
 * She worked with Prof. Alexander Seifalian. See University College London is now investigating its links with the work of Paolo Macchiarini, whose windpipe transplants led to a surgical scandal. Alexander Seifalian, a former UCL professor of biomaterials, created the first synthetic trachea to be transplanted into a patient. The 36-year old Eritrean man, Andemariam Beyene, had been suffering from advanced tracheal cancer and died two-and-a-half years after the transplant. Seifalian was dismissed from UCL in July, after a tribunal in an unrelated case found that he had dishonestly obtained £24,000 from an overseas student.
 * If the article is kept, it should at least clarify this link, rather than simply saying her work was used in the "first successful artificial organ transplant". (That claim itself btw, need to be checked). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Lemongirl942 - i had already made this series of edits and left corresponding notes on the talk page, before you made your remarks above. There was nothing in the article saying that her work was involved in the "first successful artificial organ transplant" so I don't understand why you wrote that.  As I noted on the Talk page, I found the content and sourcing that were used to connect her work to the transplants done by Macchiarini to be both flimsy and promotional and self-destructingly so - apparently done without understanding the scandal that followed.  So I took it out, because it was badly supported and promotional.  Based on the new refs you brought here which make the underying picture more clear, I am going to try and add some content about it back in, being careful to mind BLP and NPOV.  Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And done, here. It is borderline UNDUE but is concise as I could make it; one can argue that the weight is DUE since most of the press about her talks about her role in that widely discussed artificial trachea stuff... which then went down in flames around her.  Oy.  I still say this article is WP:TOOSOON.  Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just listed 11 SPA accounts on the Talk page. Most of the back and forth removal/adding of the artificial trachea stuff was done by them along with other POV edits. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 29 March 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.