Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James A. Shapiro


 * 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   keep. Nomination withdrawn. Discussion consensus indicated the subject meets WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

James A. Shapiro

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor scientist with some idiosyncratic views on evolution. These views have garnered him some small notoriety in the blogosphere, but reliable source coverage appears limited to very brief and highly tangential -- generally being asked to give a brief comment on the topic of some other scientist's research. Article is currently completely lacking third party coverage. No indication that topic meets WP:PROF, nor any articulation of any particular notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination, as the article finally (and thanks to David Eppstein) demonstrates that the topic does not fall afoul of the third bullet-point inWP:PROF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for withdrawing but please note that it is the nominator's duty to do this work under WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC).
 * PLEASE NOTE: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in WP:BEFORE that suggests that the nominator should be aware of anything not apparent in the article or through "a minute or two" on Google News/Books/Scholar. Claims that the nominator failed to perform his WP:BEFORE duties are simply a failure to observe WP:AGF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See here for a discussion around the issues of Good Faith and Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Strange, I see nothing on that page that suggests that omniscience and competence are synonyms. I would suggest that Xxanthippe take a long walk off a short planks, and take his unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable accusations with them. That hindsight is no basis for WP:BEFORE should be obvious. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- I checked Infotrac and could not find any third party coverage. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS h-index of 38, even in highly cited field, passes WP:Prof with ease. Absurd nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
 * strong keep. for real? the guy meets wp:academic(1) by having 9 papers with over 100 citations per google scholar, two of them over 350 cites, and one of those in the proceedings of the national academy of sciences.  he meets wp:academic(3) by being a fellow of the aaas, and, as people are wont to say in these discussions, the guy has an h-index of 38 per google scholar.  that is evidently quite high as these things go, you could look it up.  &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * comment edit conflict! i thought, Xxanthippe, that for once i was going to beat you to the g.s. h-index, but actually, no, you were there first. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. WoS concurs with the GS results: h-index around 28 with several sole-authored papers having hundreds of cites. Conclusive "keep" on WP:PROF #1. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Snowball keep per WP:PROF and #C3. I added the AAAS Fellow to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I wasn't so sure, but I guess AAAS fellow is a clear #C3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and remind the nominator of WP:BEFORE. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator would remind StAnselm of WP:AGF and that there was nothing in the article prior to nomination to suggest that the topic might meet WP:PROF, and that there is still nothing in the article to suggest he overcomes that criteria's 'General note' that "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your insistence on referring only to the contents of the article itself strongly hints that you still haven't read WP:BEFORE, or at least that you haven't carried out part D of that guideline, which suggests that you carry out a Google news archive search on the subject prior to nomination. I did, and found plenty of meat. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment "strongly hints that you still haven't read" the article's talkpage before making this accusation. If you had, you find that I had (i) placed a find-template there and (ii) stated that I had checked its results before even placing a notability on the article. What I was in fact mainly referring to was Shapiro's being a Fellow in the AAAS (of which there was no indication before nomination), so please tell me where WP:BEFORE states that you should check all the potential scholarly societies on the off-chance that the topic may be a Fellow? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment &mdash; the fact that he is a fellow of the aaas is mentioned in his vitae, which was included in the references before the afd was started. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: none of these 'keep' !votes address the "lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject", and the fact that WP:PROF clearly states that lacking such sources a topic may "not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia" even if it meets specific criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * reply &mdash; the guy's a fellow of the aaas per their website. this is a reliable independent source proving that the guy meets wp:prof(3).  the guy has a h-index of 38 per google scholar.  this is a reliable independent source proving that the guy meets wp:prof(1).  your nomination doesn't address the fact that wp:prof states If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable.  this guy meets two easily, no need to check for others.  wp:before asks the nominator specifically to take reasonable steps to check for reliable sources, not merely to look in the article to see if there are any already present. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for bare mention from the AAAS itself for his Fellow status there, the references for this article are: Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro & Shapiro. That is not "reliable, independent sources on the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are both right. He is notable but there aren't enough reliable, secondary sources found so far to write an adequate article.  So, in my opinion, the article should be deleted for now. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Xxanthippe. Clear pass of WP:PROF. -- 202.124.73.148 (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a/c WP:PROF, He is an expert in his field, as shown by the citations for his papers. To demonstrate that, they should be added to the article. for the most cited papers. Those citations are the necessary third party sources. Now, we could go the whole hog, and add under each appear a complete list of everyone who cited it, probably about 400 or 500 cites in all, and look in each of them for substantial discussions of his work which would normally be expected to be in about half of them, and so find about 200 3rd party RS substantial sources. But this is the level of analysis of a persons work which is bet=st left for the most specialized of biographical monographs, and wildly out of place in an encyclopedia . So we summarize with the citation count. (which is summarized by the h index -- a high h index shows notability as a practical measurement, when account is taken of the subject field.  Further, he was one of the 3 eds of the CSH Symposium DNA insertion elements, plasmids, and episomes, also held in over 400 libraries. This is the most ditiguinshed symposium series in molecular biology, and being an editor of one of their vols in a sign of academic distinction.
 * In addition, he is also notable under WP:AUTHOR. He has 2 major published books, Mobile genetic elements by AcademicPress, in over 500 worldcat libraries (and with 268 citations in GScholar); , and Bacteria as multicellular organisms by OUP , with over 430 holdings.  They will have reviews also.
 * This is quite enough to write an article about his work, and his work it is that makes him notable. We have WP:PROF because the GNG is hard to apply to academics, but if one really wants to go by the GNG, theres all those hundreds of citations.  DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks you DGG for ignoring my comment above and ignoring the 'General Notes' in WP:PROF which state: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." WP:PROF most emphatically does not give permission to opt out of WP:GNG ! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I listed some source from The New York Times and The Chicago Sun-Times at Talk:James A. Shapiro. Many more are available if needed. Drrll (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blunt rebuttal: the NYT pieces are covered by my nomination: "reliable source coverage appears limited to very brief and highly tangential -- generally being asked to give a brief comment on the topic of some other scientist's research." The purported CST piece is actually attributed to "University of Chicago" -- Shapiro's own employer -- so hardly independent. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about letting others judge for themselves whether any of the NYT references are "very brief and highly tangential," instead of striking the references from my comments at Talk:James A. Shapiro. And as others can see for themselves there, the Chicago Sun-Times article, which heavily focuses on Shapiro, is from the CTS (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1559253.html). Drrll (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking the URLs in no way renders them inaccessible, so in no way prevents "others judg[ing] for themselves". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We've got a snowball keep here anyway, based on WP:PROF, but the NYT sources from Drrll ( and ) certainly add to the case, and should go into the article. -- 202.124.75.180 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. In case the outcome was not already obvious, this 1992 New York Times profile should seal the deal. I have been working on improving the article and will try to add it today. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: those making WP:BEFORE accusations should read the actual contents of its 'sourcing search' section


 * I'm fairly sure I met these requirements. 07:33, 5 September 2011 (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.