Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven A. Garan


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Steven A. Garan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Autobiography of non-notable researcher, who has created a walled garden (including Automated Imaging Microscope System and Aging Research Centre, which I will propose for AfD separately). The article contains several claims to notability. 1/ Research ("leading scientist") and publications. Several of the listed publications are abstracts. The Web of Science list 14, if the search is done on "Garan S*" this increases to 16. Total citations 8, h-index=2. 2/ Major role in the invention of the Automated Imaging Microscope System. The claim of a "major role" is not sourced and, in addition, there is no indication at all that this system itself is notable. 3/ Director of the Aging Research Centre. Again, no indication whatsoever that this Centre is notable. Note that on the homepage of this Centre, the name of Garan is linked to the current WP article. 4/ The claim to have coined the word "Phenomics". In the article that he created on this subject, it is claimed that this word was coined in 1996, but no source for this is given. In this autobiography, 2003 is given, but the word was already used before then. Even if this fact can be substantiated, it is doubtful that this single fact would be enough to establish notability. In conclusion, this biography does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Notability (academics), hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. When is a scientist is notable because of publications and citations? Middle authorship on papers with more than three authors should not contribute to notability. MiRroar (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note User:64.85.252.225 has been blocked for repeated removal of the AFD tag. JForget  22:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. I have reverted the edits of User:Sgaran who had pasted a copy of the Steven A. Garan article into this AfD page. Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Google returns over 2500 Results S A Garan. Steven A. Garan is scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in Berkeley, California, director of bioinformatics at the University of California Berkeley, Center for Research and Education on Aging (CREA), and founder of the Aging Research Centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaran (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, Google returns only 277 results for S A Garan. This is a common mistake; one has to click to the end of the results listing. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Google returns at most 500 hits for anything. For instance, when I just tried "Wikipedia", it told me there were about 219,000,000 hits, but then only returned 266 of them. So I don't think there's any useful information to be gained in jumping to the end of a long search; it tells you only about the limitations of Google, not about the number of times the subject is actually mentioned on the web somewhere. The estimate it gives you on the first page is more useful for counting something more meaningful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the search term. If the search term has no spaces and cannot be a misspelling of something else, the front and rear return numbers are generally quite close. With a name like Steven, Google tries alternate spellings, and ditto with the last name. This leads to an overstating of the results. Returns max out at 1000, with Google trimming to less than that most of the time. A clear example is "Automated Imaging Microscope System" which has 12,700 claimed returns, but only 38 if one goes to the end. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, per nom.02:11, 1 May 2010 12.149.202.41 (talk) Since a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and director of bioinformatics at the University of California Berkeley, Center for Research and Education on Aging (CREA), this person must be rather important.
 * Keep, per nom. BIll23 (talk) 1:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC
 * Comment. The above "keep" comment was actually made by, the same user who left the keep comment above it, and was misplaced at the start of the debate. I have moved it into its chronological position and struck out the duplicate comment. There is currently no registered user named either BIll23 or BIll232. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the rather comprehensive nomination statement. Ray  Talk 06:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment User:12.149.202.41 and User:64.85.252.225 have been reported as possible sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran. -- Nuujinn (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia colleagues, I would like to update you on a issue that has become disturbing to me. A few days ago Wim Crusio and I had a disagreement over the word "Phenomics" which has been used in many scientific publications and online dictionaries. Wim Crusio has been changing the wiki entry to re-direct it to the word "Phenotype" and I have tried to keep the word as a stand alone term. After his repeated failed attempts to redirect the word to "Phenotype" he has decided to carry out a reprehensible vendetta against myself, my work and my co-researcher who passed away in 2008. As you can see by Wim Crusio's edit history on the following items, he started to delete and alter the following items, on April 29, 2010, which was directly after our disagreement over the word "Phenomics" :

Steven A. Garan, Aging Research Centre, Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola S. Timiras

I hope the contributors to wikipedia do not encourage this kind of childish behavior. If Wim Crusio has a disagreement regarding an issue with any of my wikipedia colleagues, I would hope to stand by them should a person like Wim Crusio carry out a similar campaign. What I find utterly reprehensible is Wim Crusio's sudden interest in my co-researcher of ten years Paola S. Timiras. She passed away in September of 2008 and starting on April 29, 2010, his actions in altering her page are clearly an act driven not my any scientific motivation, but instead by a malicious desire for revenge.

Steven A. Garan

Sgaran (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This researcher has no Google News or Books hits. His scholarly record is paltry, with his highest cited paper in the single digits, and he is not the first author on it to boot. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The publication record and academic administration record doesn't rise to the level of passing WP:PROF. The walled garden here seems to mirror a real-life walled garden at his CREA and ARC affiliations but not big enough of one to make him notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- auto- bio promotional article, as per nominator and user Abductive's google return investigations. Off2riorob (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with David E. Not sufficiently notable. I would have closed, except I just closed two related articles as delete & I want to give another admin the chance to see if they agree also.  DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 6 May 2010 (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.