Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Parasite Award


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Research Parasite Award

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a notable award, there is no coverage I can find in newspapers, magazines, books or journals.Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3830
 * Comment. This is from one of the two pre-eminent science journals:

This is from the other: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1005

It was started via an editorial in the pre-eminent medical journal: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMe1516564

Are here are a bunch of press releases or other topics, that are just coming from a quick skim of the results of a google search for "research parasite". I didn't take the time to figure out which are associated with recipients:

https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/7/11/giy129/5160134 https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/06/research-parasite-award-data-analysis/

In addition, NSF, NIH, DOE, and other funding agencies are going to great lengths to promote data, sharing, research parasitism, and data reuse. Would you like links on those too? This also links to a plethora of existing Wikipedia pages on the topic.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment links above aren't about the award, just the term "research parasite", similarly ISCB's comment on the NEJM editorial. IMO, "research parasite" might be worth an article, but not (yet) this award. Amkilpatrick (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Giving references bolstering any claims of notability that are not behind paywalls would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. There might be an article from all these sources on "Research parasites" or "Data sharing" but the award itself is non-notable. None of the cited references go into depth on the award and, actually, the award is not mentioned at all in any of the references that I was able to check. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC) The first article listed above, from one of the top science journals in the world, describes the awarding of the first awards and the names of the recipients://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3830.
 * Neutral. Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment.

And this is a press release on that paper, and the awards: https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/06/research-parasite-award-data-analysis/

Again, this is just the first page of results from google. There are many more.

If I specifically search the news page of google with "research parasite award", I can also get: https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/05/dirt-award-cleaning-scientific-literature/

With respect to paywalls--that would be great--but even most newspapers are behind paywalls these days. But you can find a public version of the Nature one at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710834/, with all the nuances intricacies of what PubMedCentral does and does not house related to journal copyright.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Press releases are absolutely worthless for establishing notability, they are not independent or coverage of a subject as required. STAT doesn't provide much coverage either and it's questionable as far as notability goes with regard to this subject. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am assuming your removal of my Delete post above was inadvertent. Please do not remove other editors' comments on this page, it goes against WP:TPO which states "do not alter others' comments," etc.
 * Press releases are not considered to be reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't think I deleted it. I saw your comment, started making edits, couldn't save my edits because someone else was editing, so I copied my edits, closed everything, opened it again, your comment was gone, and I pasted my edits at a blinking cursor. That said, this is a horrible interface, so who knows, and I apologize if I was the cause.

As for notability, you can argue about the press releases, but ultimately, I gave you a paper in one of the world's top science journals discussing the award and its recipients, and I provided an open access version of the journal article. Let's focus. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is another article in a magazine about the award: https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/the-open-data-explosion-65248. You may have to register to see it, but I think everyone can register "for free". ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This one from STAT news is not a press release (nor is the one above, for clarity) https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/05/incentives-science/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:4003:95AC:B9E9:A9E2:7E17 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're providing a bunch of sources but failing to understand that it needs to be in depth coverage of the awards, not the term, as Shareonink stated above, the term is likely notable but the awards are not. Lastly, for the final time, please sign your edits, as you've been repeatedly warned. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The edit above this with the article from StatNews on 2016/05/05 was my first edit. How does one sign the edits? Four tildes? Did you read the article at https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/05/incentives-science/. It's primarily about the award.2607:F470:6:4003:95AC:B9E9:A9E2:7E17 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Scientist article passes muster. The May 2016 Stat News also looks reliable. The NCBI opinion column/article seems like it might ok (is it mainly an opinion piece? - I'll need to re-read it when I have time)... Just an aside but have either of the interested editors thought about giving the Data sharing article some heavy editing? It's had an "improvements needed" Notice on it since 2016... Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Shearonink, I was looking at the data sharing page, and was considering edit it. The one on secondary data does not have a banner but also needs significant improvements. However, I am currently reluctant to even visit Wikipedia again when this is done. While I have edited pages for over a decade anonymously, my experiences on Wikipedia over the past year with non-anonymous changes have almost solely been negative (for instance, an editor who rolled back every change I made today without the courtesy of a single comment on any rollback or my page, or the editor who literally insulted me less than a week ago. And that is just this week. There are many times the same has happened in the past. I will fully admit they leave me feeling harassed and often in tears, not what a grown woman with an advanced degree, young children, and a profession needs from this "hobby". The culture on Wikipedia of late seems to be to warn and threaten first and it really makes it unbearable. Much of my response isn't related to the intended content on this page, but it is important for you to understand my answer and the veracity of that answer. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - that is its salvation and its curse. You run into nice folks and come across jerks, kind of like going to the mail and trying to park your car...there might be a jerk who cuts you off and maybe someone who is nice and maybe someone who is yelling a couple of spaces over. But you don't let them stop you, you get in to the stores and you buy what you came for, the items you need and want. The other thing is that we can't hear people's tone of voice online - sometimes typed words or actions can seem harsh but - and maybe I am being a Pollyanna about this - I think that is rarely their actual intent around here. For anyone who has been around for a while (let's say a couple years) the sheer onslaught of vandalism, the Point of view/Conflict of interest/spamming, the numerous trolls whose only reason to exist is to tear down the content...it gets wearing and sometimes long-timers might think a bad thing about a good person. That doesn't make it right but maintaining an assume good faith attitude can be tremendously difficult. I hope you stick around - if I can make it here anyone (seriously anyone) can. I started out editing a little article that was full of errors and needed serious improvements. Usually editing an existing article that one knows something about is a good way to start out. Good luck. I am swamped this week, don't have the time or frankly the inclination to even see if it is possible to fully/completely ascertain its notability but I've changed my opinion on Deletion to "Neutral". Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I try to maintain your perspective on "good faith"; it is the fourth pillar if I remember correctly. But your analogy doesn't hold because when I go to the mall parking lot, almost everyone I meet doesn't threaten to take my car away, or delete me. Most people just don't care that I'm at the mall, and some are even happy to see me spending money--helping them keep their job and contributing to services by paying taxes. If I said the things that get said to me on Wikipedia, I wouldn't have a job and I would have been worried about a harassment lawsuit. My experience is that the first response from editors always seems to be to threaten something--delete the page, delete me--or revert, deleting hours of work with a single word and no real explanation. And often I can't argue with them, because they give me nothing.  And it feels like, even if it isn't the case, that they have crony that has their back who follows up with yet another threat. Something like the following has been said to me too many time: "if you spent this much time on it, it must be a COI". Really?  Isn't the whole goal to have people spend time?  Particularly folks who know the content well? I have yet to see the first instinct be fine tuned editing, or "thanks!". And it won't improve if existing folks don't require it, because no one will want to be an editor, or maybe already no one wants to be an editor. Ultimately, if it doesn't change, Wikipedia will die, it is just a matter of time. And my God, in this day and age, forgive me but I don't sign anything.  So yelling at me because I don't sign my posts is just mean.  Really, the interface just needs to be updated and brought into this decade before it is over. But I digressed, again... Thanks for lending an ear Shearonink, I do appreciate it. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about your experience/s. Content that is removed from public view is always salvageable. You can usually always go into the edit history and at least cut&paste/save all your work to your personal sandbox. Shearonink (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

•	It seem verifiable given the Nature Genetics article in a premier scientific journal, the article in science magazine “The Scientist”, and at least two author-signed articles written on a statnews web page. All these links have been added to the main article; none of these links are press releases. As an aside, all the content is verifiable because the primary source is the award's own web page. I don't understand why a secondary source would be preferred over a primary source; usually the opposite is true when writing content. It seems that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is itself a secondary source, and really should be relying on primary sources of data to every extent possible.
 * Keep.

It seems there is some sort of voting; unfortunately none of the links supplied describe how to do that. But I clear vote to keep it. I don't see how it could rightfully be deleted given the stated criteria. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment I have downgraded this subsection because it would affect the log. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The reporting in The Scientist and STAT is enough to establish notability. The content could potentially be merged somewhere, and the prose needs a bit more going-over than I have time for today, but that's for ordinary editing to resolve, not a deletion discussion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Letters to the Editor emphatically do not rank with research articles or mainstream article coverage. However, in the aggregate the sources noted above are just about sufficient, I think. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC).
 * Comment I have noticed some coverage on the University of Pennsylvania Health System which should be reliable but it is WP:PRIMARY since the subject's creator is a professor there. Besides that, I was not able to find much that wasn't mentioned here (there is a thing on RealScientist, but that seems like an unreliable website). The STAT's coverage is nice and there is a bit in The Scientist, but I think it's not really enough to keep this afloat. Most of the references offered here are mentioning a completely different subject (which seems very well notable). This? Not so much. In my opinion, this should be merged with Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, but seeing  and 's votes, it's highly unlikely that will happen, at least in this AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2019 (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.


 * Comment scotted400 There have been additional articles about the awards in GigaScience, and I've just added a reference to an announcement about the award in the journal Biocomputing (Biocomputing 2017, pp. vii (2017) https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813207813_fmatter). With the stat news and Nature Genetics coverage is that enough "appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources" to resolve this? 04:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)