598:. Beyond that, there's not a claim to fame for this researcher, so I would delete the bio page once information is incorporated into the GFAJ-1 page. Most of the current content there seems to be in this page as well, so there likely isn't too much needed to be moved over if any unless I missed something in my quick skim.
377:
I worry a little bit that the article stigmatizes her. As a female in a male-dominated science world, she was (almost unfairly) propelled to Time-mag like fleeting luminosity, and she must rue the notoriety conferred by
Knowledge (XXG). Based on Chemical Abstracts search - she stopped publishing at
566:
500 total citations. Regarding questions of whether she is still active in science – these are irrelevant (we still have a page on
Einstein, but he's no longer active). WoS shows the Science paper is still being cited frequently, some of which are in the context of post-publication review, no doubt
565:. I think we all realize that cases like this are tricky. However, the subject has a reasonable publication/citation record. Although I count h-index of 11 (WoS, typically considered borderline), she has a couple of reasonably well-cited first author papers (including the science paper) with : -->
395:. What Smokefoot says. Felisa has taken her website down; one wouldn't think she'd be keen to have a Knowledge (XXG) page either. To Shoy: there's been stuff written on her strain of bacterium but there's preciously little sustained attention on her person.
571:
of these citations. That they are there renders her notable. I'm not aware that she has requested article deletion, so I likewise don't think we have any judicial say at the moment to delete the article on those grounds either (as has been hinted at above).
200:
This person authored a paper in a high impact scientific journal ("Science") that was later shown to be incorrect. Aside from this single mistake, she has done nothing particularly notable. The mistake in the
Science paper is discussed in
616:
Her work is in a mainstream area of science. It just happens to be that a particular aspect she had proposed is wrong. This happens in science all the time, though not typically to this scale. FRINGE does not apply in this particular case.
330:
Journal retracted the paper, and I don't care for Time
Magazine's ethics of following suit. Her work was mistaken and debunked, and was not influential at all. Should we also make a biography on whoever said the Moon is made of Cheese?
169:
434:
222:
378:
that
Science paper in 2011 except for a rebuttal that made things only worse. She has 11 publications, including the rebuttal. But editors here have a better sense than do I which way to go.--
122:
163:
454:
677:, I guess? A person listed in a time top 100 most influentual people in the world is considered for deletion on wikipedia due to non-notability. Clearly
129:
590:
I was almost going to go for a weak keep as cases like this where scientific results are noticeable overturned and reported upon can be notable per
678:
95:
90:
99:
252:
82:
548:
I share
Smokefoot's concerns about this article. This is basically one event, even if it's one event that got a lot of media coverage.
202:
17:
396:
656:
per
Agricola et al. - she's been covered in enough RS and her work has gone beyond this one massive debacle. She'd probably pass
244:
205:
and probably some other articles. To some limited extent, the mistake made in her paper is thought provoking, but she isn't. --
184:
482:
151:
516:
709:
40:
145:
553:
478:
247:
called her 1 of the 100 top most influential people in the world in 2011. Another long profile by
Popular Science
336:
690:
669:
648:
626:
607:
581:
557:
538:
507:
486:
466:
446:
425:
404:
387:
365:
340:
314:
286:
263:
232:
214:
64:
567:
related to the controversy. However, I don't think it is our job (or probably within our ability) to judge the
421:
141:
86:
603:
229:
191:
705:
686:
549:
400:
36:
248:
622:
577:
332:
644:
417:
383:
210:
177:
591:
303:, which seems to be the article covering the controversy (although it should perhaps be renamed).
526:
361:
78:
70:
594:(and interesting to boot). However, the content on the Science article would fit much better in
413:
272:
157:
665:
599:
503:
462:
442:
226:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
704:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
657:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
682:
618:
573:
259:
640:
379:
309:
281:
206:
55:
531:
357:
661:
499:
458:
438:
354:
116:
498:
giant flame-outs, and people who make such are notorious, and yes, even notable.
255:
304:
276:
203:
Hypothetical types of biochemistry#Arsenic as an alternative to phosphorus
243:. Too much has been written about her to call her not notable, i.e.:
595:
300:
271:- I understand where you're coming from here, Smokefoot, (a kind of
698:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
519:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
435:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
223:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
112:
108:
104:
176:
660:
even without it, though I'd have to do some digging.
477:. Sometimes scholarly work can be a notable failure.
525:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
190:
275:for scientists?) but I think ABF99 has it right.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
712:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
455:list of Science-related deletion discussions
453:Note: This debate has been included in the
433:Note: This debate has been included in the
221:Note: This debate has been included in the
452:
432:
220:
479:The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)
681:. I'll errr on the side of keeping --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
349:Correction: The Science paper has
24:
679:One great publication is wrong
1:
691:02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
670:01:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
649:01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
639:per the nominator and David.
627:12:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
608:04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
65:08:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
582:22:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
558:09:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
539:06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
508:00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
487:19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
467:18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
447:18:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
426:18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
412:. No lasting impact, fails
405:18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
388:22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
366:10:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
341:17:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
315:20:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
295:I wouldn't be opposed to a
287:13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
264:07:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
233:01:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
215:01:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
729:
494:per Hullaballoo. Science
588:Delete with some merging.
251:A Google search produced
701:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
253:many more references.
79:Felisa Wolfe-Simon
71:Felisa Wolfe-Simon
541:
469:
449:
313:
285:
235:
63:
720:
703:
550:Opabinia regalis
536:
529:
524:
522:
520:
307:
279:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
728:
727:
723:
722:
721:
719:
718:
717:
716:
710:deletion review
699:
542:
532:
527:
515:
513:
353:been retracted
333:BatteryIncluded
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
726:
724:
715:
714:
694:
693:
672:
651:
633:
632:
631:
630:
611:
610:
585:
560:
523:
512:
511:
510:
489:
471:
470:
450:
429:
428:
418:David Eppstein
407:
390:
371:
370:
369:
368:
344:
343:
320:
319:
318:
317:
290:
289:
266:
237:
236:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
725:
713:
711:
707:
702:
696:
695:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
673:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
634:
628:
624:
620:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
583:
579:
575:
570:
564:
561:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
543:
540:
537:
535:
530:
521:
518:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
385:
381:
376:
373:
372:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
329:
325:
322:
321:
316:
311:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
288:
283:
278:
274:
270:
267:
265:
261:
257:
254:
250:
246:
245:Time Magazine
242:
239:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
700:
697:
674:
653:
636:
600:Kingofaces43
587:
568:
562:
545:
533:
514:
495:
491:
474:
409:
392:
374:
350:
327:
323:
296:
268:
240:
227:Everymorning
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
683:Kim Bruning
397:144.92.4.49
164:free images
619:Agricola44
574:Agricola44
58:Sandstein
706:talk page
641:Ironholds
592:WP:FRINGE
459:• Gene93k
439:• Gene93k
380:Smokefoot
310:reactions
282:reactions
207:Smokefoot
37:talk page
708:or in a
534:JAaron95
517:Relisted
414:WP:BIO1E
273:WP:BLP1E
123:View log
39:or in a
662:Keilana
658:WP:PROF
569:context
500:Bearian
496:expects
375:Comment
328:Science
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
637:Delete
596:GFAJ-1
546:Delete
410:Delete
393:Delete
326:- The
324:Delete
301:GFAJ-1
230:(talk)
142:Google
100:delete
297:merge
256:ABF99
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
687:talk
675:Keep
666:talk
654:Keep
645:talk
623:talk
604:talk
578:talk
563:Keep
554:talk
504:talk
492:Keep
483:talk
475:Keep
463:talk
443:talk
422:talk
401:talk
384:talk
362:talk
358:Paul
356:. --
337:talk
305:shoy
277:shoy
269:Keep
260:talk
249:here
241:Keep
211:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
416:. —
351:not
299:to
192:TWL
121:– (
52:.
689:)
668:)
647:)
625:)
606:)
580:)
556:)
506:)
485:)
465:)
457:.
445:)
437:.
424:)
403:)
386:)
364:)
339:)
262:)
225:.
213:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
685:(
664:(
643:(
629:.
621:(
602:(
584:.
576:(
552:(
528:☮
502:(
481:(
461:(
441:(
420:(
399:(
382:(
360:(
335:(
312:)
308:(
284:)
280:(
258:(
209:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.