Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Curran (scientist)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sean Curran (scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject is an assistant professor studying longevity. As a postdoc he was involved in a study identifying genes involved in this in a worm. This study generated some interest, as shown by a short item in The New York Times. This, however, only mentions Curran but interviews (as might be expected) the senior author of that study, G. Ruvkun. (Note that even if Curran had been the interviewee, this single short item would not really have been enough to satisfy WP:GNG). "Curran, Sean" has 10 articles listed in the Web of Science, that have been cited 165 times (h-index of 5). Top article (the Ruvkun study referred to above) generates 98 of these 165 hits. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, too little, too soon. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of this post. Obviously, we all share the same intentions: to provide appropriate content for Wikipedia that is accurate and impartial. I understand the concerns that perhaps it is too early in Sean Curran's career to have an entry. I deleted another prospective USC assistant professor entry I created because that person, while talented, did not have enough of a scientific reputation, so please don't think I do not respect the editorial standards of Wikipedia. In this case, I think Sean Curran, despite being an assistant professor, is an important scientist with a widely respected reputation--otherwise I would not have created the entry. If the consensus among Wikipedia editors is that Curran is too early in his career for an entry, would it be possible for me to delete the page rather than have it deleted by Wikipedia? I was told that if Wikipedia deleted an entry there was a record, which might reflect badly on the subject, and I do not want to cause Curran any undue embarrassment. Jriggs2012 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Also: perhaps it was not clear from the entry, but Curran currently is the PI of his own lab at USC, funded by grants he himself earned. Jriggs2012 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - I think the sources in the article establish notability. It might be a borderline case, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. By the way, Jriggs2012, if the page does get deleted, you might consider requesting it to be userfied, so you can work on it in userspace. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Borderline Keep, despite his young age and the fact that it is early in his career. His work has earned some coverage in the mainstream press, including the New York Times, and he was the lead author on several articles cited more than 100 times at Google Scholar. A close call but he may make it per a combination of WP:BIO and WP:SCHOLAR. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that he is first author on these articles, but that in this field the "senior author" is the last author, who may have done all the thinking and the postdoc just did the wetlab work as he was told to do. I'm not saying that was necessarily the case here, some postdocs definitely contribute much more than that and have a real intellectual input into this kind of articles. What I am saying is that we just have no way of knowing what Curran's contribution to those articles was. Note also that most of the newspaper coverage mentioned his supervisor more prominently and Curran only in-passing. I would feel more comfortable if Curran had already such highly-cited papers from his own lab, but that is perhaps a bit too early. As for the permanent record: this AfD will remain part of the record, but I request that the closing admin (whatever the outcome of the debate) does a courtesy blanking and adds a "noindex" template, so that this will not turn up in searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume2303 (talk • contribs)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confess _ 14:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Second relist rationale: Seems like a borderline case, I'd feel more comfortable with a little more discussion.  -Scottywong | soliloquize _  14:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. With a GS h-index of 18, this seems a little below the mark for life sciences. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete. I agree the promising subject doesn't quite pass WP:ACADEMIC, but this is an important area of research and it's possible (WP:CRYSTAL) we'll look foolish deleting the bio page of a future major award winner. I'd normally be inclined to suggest userfication, but for this discussion. An institution does itself no credit by self-promotion (if such it is) on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2012 (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.