Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen A. Selz


 * 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. v/r - TP 01:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Karen A. Selz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. red dog six (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting strategy of trying to cite a book she wrote on Amazon... Clearly not notable. Themanfromscene24 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per reasoning above. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep - Karen A. Selz is a pioneer in the applications of the ergodic (measure) theory of dynamical systems to brain processes with publication in front line journals since 1989-1990. Representative examples are well referenced on the page being discussed for deletion. She has also applied these strategies to develop algorithmic schemes for neuropeptide design and currently holds 95 patents on each of unique, brain active peptides. The major articles in this research program are well referenced on the page being discussed. She is frequently an invited participant in edited books in her field and meeting presentations. She has organized and for 15 years directed the activities of Cielo Institute (www.cieloinstitute.org)involving a wide variety of participating scientists working in several fields. She recently demonstrated for the first time (PLos Computational Biology, 2011) that human neurtraphils (white cells) demonstrated measure supported first order phase transitions in "shape."
 * I am confused that so little specifically relevant issues are not understood or discussed by the "deleters". Is this the "wikipedian" uninformed authoritarianism that I have been recently hearing about?? Don't the "deleters" spend anytime really researching the literature relevant to the person being considered? She has been on the frontier of the new biological sciences involving nonlinear dynamical systems for almost 25 years. She developed an entirely new way to design functional peptides for the brain. Her current project in human single cell behavior creates a "single cell mathematical behavior" area which she is currently working in. This is a great and productive American woman scientist.


 * Her "novelistic" work is a hobby and shouldn't be held against her. Who ever it was that thought her whole remarkable career was a cheap trick to advertise one of these hobby books should be significantly chagrined.It was both uninformed and insulting. These arguements are supported by the list of top journal references included on the page being considered for deletion. Look at the institute she created, www.cieloinstitute.org.        — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmandell (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)  — Ajmandell (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To be clear, no one was trying to hold her novelistic hobby against her, it just seems in the context of an encyclopedia article to be an irrelevant detail which certainly does not contribute to the subject's notability. Further that institute which she founded is hardly a sign of notability as the institute itself is not particularly notable (does not have an article, does not turn up significant results in Google News searches, etc.) Themanfromscene24 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Having reread the guidlines for deletion, I do not believe that these are met. I do believe that the article will benefit from a revision, including better formatting and the inclusion of Dr. Selz's patents. I will make these revisions. comment added by wikiwaki8 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC). — wikiwaki8 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There aren't any guidelines for deletion, only for inclusion on the basis of various kinds of notability. Now that the article is here at AfD, the only way it will be retained is if notability under one of those categories can be demonstrated. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. WoS shows a scholarship having a very average impact: h-index = 8. Although there are some papers with reasonably high cites, the corresponding author on those seems to predominantly be Arnold J. Mandell. I would suggest that no further WP:SPAs weigh-in here because this sort of thing quickly sours the mood of other eds you hope to win-over, especially because the article itself was created by a SPA account and because there is already some level of special pleading for accomplishments that are outside of WP:PROF (e.g. specific research results or organizing meetings). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete the placement of the bar for being an authority is disputed, but I think that the doubt is at higher levels--by all reasonable interpretation of the discussions on the subject, her record of publications is considerably below the standard, and there is nothing else compensating for it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation counts for her work aren't high enough to convince me that she's making the significant impact demanded by WP:PROF and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 14 November 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.