Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Mersini-Houghton


 * 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. Consensus herein is leaning toward a keep close, but in my opinion isn't quite there for such a close in this rather borderline case. Content in some of the !votes such as "Indications are strong she meets the GNG", the subject having received "susbtantial articles in the widely read but not so reliable Daily Mail" and "Appears to meet the GNG" contributed to the no consensus result, because these notions are not aligned with plainly or obviously meeting stated guidelines. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Laura Mersini-Houghton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is irrelevant. Not every educator can get their article on Wikipedia, see Notability (academics). This individual doesn't meet the notability criteria (associate professor instead of distinguished/full professor; no noted awards and so on). The contents such as claims of prediction lack any credibility. Also, appearance in an episode of some leisure popular sci TV series is not notable regardless if the episode was nominated for an award. Besides, the article has been suffering from numerous problems for too long to be ignored any further; the tags make it look like a Christmas tree. The bragging is prevalent, namely the way "achievements" are blown out of proportion w/o reliable references to support the claimed "prediction genius" of this individual, and so on. Their main contribution seems to be co-authorship in developing of a sci theory, which is not notable either. It all points to turbo POV, bordering on delusional even. So I move for deletion. Holybeef (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Keep. Although a GS h-index of 15 is marginal to pass WP:Prof in a highly cited field. A bit too early . I have to say that I don't like the tone of the nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep although I agree the current article is in sad shape, poorly referenced, original research, badly done. Indications of notability in the pageviews (see last 90 days) plus quick google search. Will try to improve but next few days I have to paint, work, oversee gas installation, etc. Indications are strong she meets the GNG which prevails over the WP:PROF (but if I find otherwise I'll redo my vote.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Adding: numerous RS found, important new theory to explain cosmology consistent with string theory; plus substantial pageviews even one day over 500+, suggesting notability (although pageviews is not officially a criteria of Wikipedia's idea of notability). Important scientist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Tomwsulcer: The article is about a person so the nomination has nothing to do with the way the article is written. The numerous tags metaphor was used as a pointer to a broader lack of substance, not as a call for even more edits (and likely more tags). After a few years that this has been sitting around, last-minute touches, rephrasing whatever can be said about a person, mean nothing since they lack notability. Gene93k: I don't understand what you mean by "too early"? How can we foretell if someone will make a splash in science? Also, I don't see any problem with the nomination's tone; it's just usual calling a spade a spade.  Holybeef (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase "too early" indicates that the subject is not notable now, but might become notable in the future, as her career progresses. In other words, a deletion now does not rule out a possible re-creation and keep in a few years time. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not like this article was created recently, though. Holybeef (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Closing admin, please note that during the deletion review, this article was revamped to a solid article with good references; then User:Holybeef reverted the improvements, restored the COI/OR tags, against the spirit of WP:HEYMANN, to return the article to this flawed version, apparently fixated on deleting the earlier (flawed) article while preventing contributors from trying to fix it. Please consider the improved version in your review, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your plea is redundant as they always do. Note also I didn't state half of the reasons why I reverted your "edit": for instance, one of your May, 2014, refs said she was the first one who had claimed there are no black holes, however Stephen Hawking said that back in January, 2014. So just to make it clear, not only that you tried to edit wording (though the problem is lack of academic notability), but you also used bogus references. Then you insisted she's a notable scientist of Brian Greene caliber, which is nonsense (she's not even a full professor), and so on. Please stop trying to save an article which has had so many problems for years by a last-minute rephrasing and using bogus refs without adding anything of substance to prove actual academic notability. Quantity doesn't make up for quality. Holybeef (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the reasons above is grounds for thwarting a good faith effort to improve the article; if you have an issue with a particular sentence or reference, say so; but reverting an entire revamp is frowned on by the community and may lead to you being blocked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of resorting to exhaustive last-minute text edits, bogus refs and threats, all you have to do is prove academic notability. Simple as that. Holybeef (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF, with a low h-index, and no other indicators of notability. In addition, the article has a severe case of Wikipuffery, with some serious exaggeration of the novelty of the subject's research. -- 101.117.88.62 (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: A notable cosmologist and theoretical physicist. Her publications have been noted by academics indicated via high citation scores (see GS). By my calculation the GS h-index is ( 16 )( 15 ) 16. For example her paper - Melchiorri, A., Mersini, L., Ödman, C. J., & Trodden, M. (2003). The state of the dark energy equation of state. Physical Review D, 68(4), 043509. has been cited in many other works (450+) some of which in turn are very highly cited (2000+). Her work has also been noted in the UK mass media. Eg Susbtantial articles in the widely read but not so reliable Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2326869/Is-universe-merely-billions-Evidence-existence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html, The Sunday Times http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article1261602.ece; An Interview on Paxman's Newsnight on 09/06/2014.  Article could do with trimming and editing but deletion is to my mind inappropriate. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Academic notability is fairly straightforward to establish, and this person fails the test on all accounts. That one ref would seem like an exception that confirms the rule, but even that only (and only) if she was the lead author, which she wasn't: she wasn't even the second-to-lead since the coauthors are listed in alphabetical order so the credit is split evenly with hers being mere 1/4! Besides, three of us found low h so it seems you're doing something wrong imho. Even though h itself is questionable as a measure. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Prof 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. This seems to me to be satisfied as she has been quoted in conventional media BBC Newsnight - Radio 4  - Sunday Times Daily Express - Guardian as an academic expert (Laura Mersini-Houghton, an esteemed cosmologist) on this Multiverse stuff. Also the second paper in GS has her as the lead author: Mersini, L., Bastero-Gil, M., & Kanti, P. (2001). Relic dark energy from the trans-Planckian regime. Physical Review D, 64(4), 043508. This is also highly cited (150) and cited by extremely highly cited papers (2000+, 1000+).  (Msrasnw (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC))
 * That's a progress but hardly one which constitutes a substantial impact outside academia. Try Brian Greene for your measuring stick rather. Holybeef (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Cited by extremely highly cited papers" is not a valid notability criterion. And 150 citations for a paper is not much -- many minor academics have that much. We would need a substantial h-index, or something like 1,000 citations for a single paper, to pass WP:PROF #1. As to the case for #7, a handful of one-off media quotes does not constitute a substantial impact outside academia. -- 101.117.29.169 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. It seems we have a case of groupies here who use emotion instead of reason and rules. Holybeef (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, in agreement with User:Msrasnw. But the article needs major improvement. --MaeseLeon (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. Academic notability has nothing to do with the article format or styling but the person's academic profile. So far, this person fails to meet the academic notability tests. Holybeef (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources found. While an Associate professor normally does not automatically rank per WP:PROF, tenure is now so difficult to achieve that we have included some otherwise notable Associate professors; see Barbette Spaeth and John McWhorter for examples. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's like saying someone's "half pregnant." Rules are clear and until they are amended so to reflect your "tenure is now so difficult to achieve" POV, we'll have to go by the rules. Surely you may wish to propose an amendment to the rules and ask for consensus in the usual way, but this isn't the place or time to do it. The two examples you state are a call for their deletion rather: in the former case, according to the intro paragraph, notability is alleged based on the fact the person was "voted as the sexiest woman alive in 1973" (w/o source!) and some (school's internal?) teaching awards. How does that establish academic notability? The latter mentions the person authored books on race and that's it. That's a very questionable notability, to put it mildly! Thanks for pointing at those, I'll get to nominating those two articles too for deletion as soon as I get a chance. Holybeef (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So far, I see 3 deletes, 1 keep, and 3 bogus votes obviously misreading rules and passing some irrelevant comments. Everyone: please use the Notability rules for academics when voting. Holybeef (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't be pointy. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Holybeef (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And don't threaten to nominate an article for deletion based on obvious vandalism. Bearian (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, point taken, no need to repeat yourself. Besides, thanking you for pointing at other non-compliant articles is not a threat, obviously. Unlike blocking threats. Holybeef (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Msrasnw suggests a h-index of 15, but that's still below the threshold of notability. Historically, we've drawn the threshold at about 20, or somewhat lower in low-citation fields (which theoretical physics is not). I see no other grounds for passing WP:PROF either. The "associate professor" issue is a red herring: being a tenured professor has never been grounds for passing WP:PROF. Instead, we have the criteria C1 to C9 in that policy, none of which are applicable to the subject. The alternative road to notability is WP:GNG, but that isn't passed either. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Academics are notable by passing either WP:ACADEMIC or general notability guideline. She easily meets GNG and meets points 1 and 7 of WP:ACADEMIC despite the obvious vandalism by Holybeef.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing the false claim of vandalism. I simply reverted your exhaustive last-minute edit as it seemed like you were trying to blur the real issue before it could be discussed: academic notability. Your hurry is puzzling to put it mildly, especially given that the article was sitting around for years along with numerous tags that made it look like a Christmas tree. So many tags can't mean a consensus to keep, but rather a broader displeasure by various editors over the years, many of whom are obviously unaware of this nomination to delete. That's basically why I insist on leaving the article as-is until the decision is made: so that their "voice" too could be heard. It's useful if anything. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.--WP:ACADEMIC
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.--WP:ACADEMIC
 * No indication she has made significant impact in her discipline. The sources are far from reliable, as I showed on an example which claimed in May she was the first one to have claimed there are no black holes, when in fact it was Stephen Hawking who said it in January. Besides, she hasn't made a substantial impact outside academia either: take Brian Greene as your measuring rod for example, he's made such an impact with thousands of references and broad media coverage, compared to her one or two such references. That's what an average academic gets, really. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. WoS h-index is 8 and it seems that the media pieces above discuss some aspects of her work (with others). Articles like this are fairly routine for academics, especially in the "publicly-relatable" fields (like astronomy, medicine, etc.) I think this person will achieve notability, but it is WP:TOOSOON. Not that it matters to notability, but most of the article is POV-pushing WP:OR. Agricola44 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Hi - did you check WoS for Laura Mersini-Houghton and for Laura Mersini. I think if you do this WoS would add a couple of extra to the index WoS h-index 10. Those of us interested in these things know - 10 is much bigger than 8. I might be wrong - perhaps you could check.:) (Msrasnw (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Good point. In WoS, the more general search "AUTHOR: (Mersini-Houghton L* OR Mersini L*) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" returns 25 results (all of which appear to be her, not someone else) and an h-index of 10. Most of her early papers are low citation, but she is first author on a PhysRevD paper (2001) that has 112 citations. While I think this is very good, it is also true that this sector of physics is associated with high paper count and high citations. Consequently, this seems to be a very borderline case in my view. I've struck my !vote above and will only leave my contribution here as an informational one. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks :) (Msrasnw (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC))


 * Comments
 * 1) h values needs to be used with judgement. There's a lot of difference between someone who publishes 10 routine papers with 10 citations each and someone who publishes 2 papers with 100 citations each and 8 with 10 -- yet h=10 in both cases. Scientists are judged by their best work. Factors to take into consideration also is where the articles are published, and which journals cite them,  where they are working, for which of their papers are they senior author (usually this = first or last, depending on subject) how much of their work is independent as contrasted to work done in their training or influenced by their advisors.
 * True. Unfortunately, it seems that those who vote to keep rely primarily (if not exclusively) on h in order to establish her academic notability. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) At a truly first rate university, associate professor promotions go to those sufficiently excellent  for their colleagues to feel utterly confident they will   attract first rate students and postdocs over the course of their careers. Such people are notable. (I judge first rate by the standards I have seen applied at the two such places I know best, Princeton and Berkeley) . At a good but not top level research university, the qualification is just good enough to continue producing published work. (I know some places of that sort also.) Those people are not usually notable in any real sense.
 * Agree. Her school is far from being a first rate university so that's one way of measuring notability. Rarely are the media interested in what someone from a second rate school has to say about a topic that is expected to receive broad coverage. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

1, There are two major danger signs I watch for at afd discussions. One is an editor trying desperately by all conceivable arguments to show someone notable. The other is an editor trying to attack every "keep" judgement. They both often represent poor judgement or COI or bias. An additional danger sign is editors arguing strenuously either that this is a vote or this is not a vote. Neither is strictly correct. We go by the balance of the strength of the arguments, but the number of experienced people supporting a position is relevant to judging its strength.

2.I'm also very concerned when nominators or others start using unnecessarily emotional language, or denigrating the subject. For one thing, BLP applies to a considerable extent even in discussions. "bordering on the delusional" is unacceptable language here, & my instinctive feeling is anyone who needs to use it may have some COI, such as judging someone notable or not depending on what position the subject takes on a disputed issue. That's not a comment on actual notability, which I need to think about. Sometimes even  someone with a coi can be correct.
 * Thanks but no coi here really: note I said "It all points to turbo POV, bordering on delusional even." It's rather obvious I wasn't referring to the person itself, but to the way in which she was being presented on Wikipedia as well as in cited media that seem to credit her (falsely) with discoveries that are not hers, see above for the example with black holes and Stephen Hawking. Other editors agreed in the above that this is a case of heavy POV. I'd like to add: one I have never encountered before on Wikipedia quite honestly. This should be a straightforward case imho. But it seems that for some reason there's a whole brigade of editors who are trying at any cost to portray this person as a scientist of Brian Greene caliber. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I breaking my own rule, by responding again, if viewed that way, your comment violates BLP and slso ]]WP:NPA]] with respect to whoever wrote it.
 * Sorry to disappoint, no idea what you mean. Perhaps if you brushed your English a bit? Sorry I didn't mean to be rude if your first language wasn't English but say, Albanian... Holybeef (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

3 Notability is not the only reason for deletion. Incurable promotionalism is another good reason. When this is challenged, the responsibility of someone supporting the article is to show it is not incurable by fixing it.
 * It's challenged indeed. Apologies if someone took it in another way. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

4/ My own practice when I nominate an article for deletion is to rely on my argument  as I gave it, and sometimes  respond once or twice to any important key misunderstandings, but to otherwise let the community decide as it sees best. If people disagree with me, that's what the discussions are for. Anyone who deals with borderline cases as I usually do will inevitably find frequent disagreement. If the community decides against me, it is neither proof that I am stupid, or that everybody else is. The point of discussion is to reach a conclusion, not to win a victory.  DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more, thanks. Don't forget to cast your vote though. :) Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I really need to. I've been explaining well enough why your approach to this deletion indicates that your views should be treated with skepticism. However, since you ask:.


 * Keep' Appears to meet the GNG because of the interest taken by reliable semi-populat sources in what is clearly a quite  unusual   claim. If her work is taken seriously by the astrophysics people, then she would meet WP:PROF also, but that part is still unclear. (she is co-editor of 2 books by Springer, a leading academic publisher,   her articles are in good journals, and UNC-CH is a    very good research university, tho not a world leader in this field.) The main negative factor is that at least the most important papers that do reference her work just mention it, not taking it as a hypothesis worth detailed refutation  ) This is a rather frequent situation, that a hypothesis that may be a little scientific significance is taken seriously by the press, which is always looking for something potentially sensational.  The rationale for our  using the GNG in such cases is that the public will   see these sources  and know what it is about, but this needs careful writing to avoid giving the wrong impression of scientific proof. The article will of course need such rewriting, but   I do not consider it hopelessly promotional even as it stands. . I imagine everything I say here will be attacked by the nominator,  If instead of commenting here I had decided to close,  I would have been likely to close non-consensus, because the intensity of the attack polarizes what ought to be a discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "If her work is taken seriously" means you're contradicting yourself and renders your "vote" bogus. Being mean is your choice of course, but it has nothing to do with reasonable (arguments-based) discussion. Thanks though, since you've made great points in favor of delete in the above, as well as when explaining your "vote" Holybeef (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you do not understand the GNG. Considering notability of anything by the GNG does not take into account the intrinsic merit of the subject. Whether the work is taken seriously by the physics community affects notability by WP:PROF, but not by the GNG, which couldn't care less about such things. Whatever the general public pays attention to is notable, regardless of what scientists think of it.   DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone already noticed in the above, she doesn't meet alternative routes to notability, such as the GNG. According to you, more than one editor misunderstood the GNG. So you are here to enlighten us. Oh boy. Read: it takes 1000's of secondary sources in order to make a person notable. Provide the proof, simple as that. If you can't, oh well. Holybeef (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the discussion above I have changed my vote on this borderline case. Although my change has nothing to do with the conduct of the nominator in this AfD debate, I find this to be a bad faith nomination and more than pointy. The nominator's contribution record is instructive. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
 * You can try make it personal all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this is an article about a person who doesn't meet any notability criteria whatsoever for the past 8 years since the article was created. Which brings me to the main comment: the durability itself of such an article that consists mostly of heavy POV and blatant lies on the person's "genius" is most revealing however. So it seems we have a case of groupies here who use emotion instead of reason and rules. Can't do anything about that of course, besides stating that such their (your) votes don't count. Either discuss seriously or don't discuss at all. By the way: there's a good old measure of someone's notability before voting delete/keep: read the intro paragraph which, under the current rules on notability, must summarize the reason why a person is considered notable. This individual fails on that count too. So in conclusion, I don't see any significant opposition to delete, where by significant I mean supported by argument in a serious discussion; instead, we have some hand-waving, with plenty of bias, misreading of applicable rules (or stretching them to unbelievable proportions) as well as tricks such as bait-votes that "suddenly" turn to their opposite. Ah those tricks to weaken strong nominations... Holybeef (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note on references added to the proposed edit on the article's talk page: the added references are mostly primary. Note however that, when establishing whether someone is or isn't notable, Wikipedia uses secondary sources only. On the other hand, reliable secondary sources do report on this person's failures, like when a 175-people collaboration recently found no evidence of dark flow that this person is basing her work on, and the collaboration even explicitly stated so: "There is no detection of bulk flow". It seems that this person not only isn't notable, but is also dead-wrong about what some here would portray as a sign of genius. Holybeef (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question. If the closing admin decides to keep this article, given that there appears to be an anti-Mersini-Houghton POV-warrior here who repeatedly reverts attempts to improve the article, what can be done to prevent future edit-warring? That is, closing the deletion discussion is easy; but is there a way to pervent future edit-warring and vandalism?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply - Articles that are routinely vandalized can have page protection applied, but perusal of the revision history for the article doesn't demonstrate ongoing vandalism. Regarding edit warring, check out the essay WP:BRD for starters. These matters can often be resolved through discussion on the article's talk page. NorthAmerica1000 08:05, 13 July 2014 (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.