Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felisa Wolfe-Simon


 * 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  08:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person authored a paper in a high impact scientific journal ("Science") that was later shown to be incorrect. Aside from this single mistake, she has done nothing particularly notable. The mistake in the Science paper is discussed in Hypothetical types of biochemistry and probably some other articles. To some limited extent, the mistake made in her paper is thought provoking, but she isn't. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Too much has been written about her to call her not notable, i.e.:  Time Magazine  called her 1 of the 100 top most influential people in the world in 2011.  Another long profile by Popular Science here A Google search produced many more references.  ABF99 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I understand where you're coming from here, Smokefoot, (a kind of WP:BLP1E for scientists?) but I think ABF99 has it right. shoy (reactions) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to GFAJ-1, which seems to be the article covering the controversy (although it should perhaps be renamed). shoy (reactions) 20:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Science Journal retracted the paper, and I don't care for Time Magazine's ethics of following suit. Her work was mistaken and debunked, and was not influential at all. Should we also make a biography on whoever said the Moon is made of Cheese?  BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: The Science paper has not been retracted . --Paul (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I worry a little bit that the article stigmatizes her. As a female in a male-dominated science world, she was (almost unfairly) propelled to Time-mag like fleeting luminosity, and she must rue the notoriety conferred by Wikipedia.  Based on Chemical Abstracts search - she stopped publishing at that Science paper in 2011 except for a rebuttal that made things only worse.  She has 11 publications, including the rebuttal.  But editors here have a better sense than do I which way to go.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Smokefoot says. Felisa has taken her website down; one wouldn't think she'd be keen to have a Wikipedia page either.  To Shoy: there's been stuff written on her strain of bacterium but there's preciously little sustained attention on her person. 144.92.4.49 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No lasting impact, fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Sometimes scholarly work can be a notable failure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo. Science expects giant flame-outs, and people who make such are notorious, and yes, even notable. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I share Smokefoot's concerns about this article. This is basically one event, even if it's one event that got a lot of media coverage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we all realize that cases like this are tricky. However, the subject has a reasonable publication/citation record. Although I count h-index of 11 (WoS, typically considered borderline), she has a couple of reasonably well-cited first author papers (including the science paper) with >500 total citations. Regarding questions of whether she is still active in science – these are irrelevant (we still have a page on Einstein, but he's no longer active). WoS shows the Science paper is still being cited frequently, some of which are in the context of post-publication review, no doubt related to the controversy. However, I don't think it is our job (or probably within our ability) to judge the context of these citations. That they are there renders her notable. I'm not aware that she has requested article deletion, so I likewise don't think we have any judicial say at the moment to delete the article on those grounds either (as has been hinted at above). Agricola44 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete with some merging. I was almost going to go for a weak keep as cases like this where scientific results are noticeable overturned and reported upon can be notable per WP:FRINGE (and interesting to boot). However, the content on the Science article would fit much better in GFAJ-1. Beyond that, there's not a claim to fame for this researcher, so I would delete the bio page once information is incorporated into the GFAJ-1 page. Most of the current content there seems to be in this page as well, so there likely isn't too much needed to be moved over if any unless I missed something in my quick skim. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Her work is in a mainstream area of science. It just happens to be that a particular aspect she had proposed is wrong. This happens in science all the time, though not typically to this scale. FRINGE does not apply in this particular case. Agricola44 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Delete per the nominator and David. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Agricola et al. - she's been covered in enough RS and her work has gone beyond this one massive debacle. She'd probably pass WP:PROF even without it, though I'd have to do some digging. Keilana (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, I guess? A person listed in a time top 100 most influentual people in the world is considered for deletion on wikipedia due to non-notability. Clearly One great publication is wrong. I'll errr on the side of keeping  --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2015 (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.