Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Giles

Sam Giles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the individual has published a few good academic papers, by comparison with other high profile academics in the field of palaeontology listed on Wikipedia (for example, Jenny Clack, Mark Norell or Michael Benton), her contribution is very minor and does not pass the WP:SCI. I feel that maybe in the future this individual should be considered for a wiki page, but at present I cannot see any reason for it being retained. The research section also boasts of more of self promotion and several of the sources are directly linked to academic studies, rather than actual newsworthy science. None of the sources show indicate that this person is clearly notable. My suggestion is for the page to be considered for deletion. I am new to editing Wiki, but am a semi-retired paleontologist and have noticed a bunch of wikipedia paleontologist pages that I feel do not warrant their own page, by comparison with such individuals mentioned above and therefore intend to do a bit of a clean up and contribute where I can. User:Xioa72 (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2018 (CET)

Keep I would firstly note that WP:SCI is not Wikipedia policy, but a failed proposal, so it can't be used to assess articles. The relevant guideline is WP:NACADEMIC, which has 9 points, the first of which is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Those sources do not need to be scholarly, but WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE. There are a lot of non-independent sources included in this article (her own papers, and sources from or by universities she is or has been affiliated with). However, there are several which are both independent and reliable, eg [1], [2], and (not in the article) [3], [4], [5], and which do indicate (to a non-paleontologist) that her research has had a significant impact on the field. The subject of this article may not be as notable as the others you referred to, but, if she meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability, that is not a reason for this article to be deleted. (I would have to say that these sources are not "the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1", and other editors may not agree that she meets any criterion of WP:NACADEMIC, or even WP:GNG.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, that's much appreciated. Yes, you make some good points. However, I was unaware of the pages you mention - I'm new to Wikipedia editing (sorry), but looking at those pages, and specifically what is required for individuals of notability, this reiterates my previous statement that this individuals contribution to her field does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability sensu WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Compare with those mentioned previously, or other palaeontologists who have made major, significant contributions in this field such as Darren Naish, David B. Norman, or even Robert T. Bakker. I don't see any evidence that this individual is deserved of their own Wikipedia page. There are 100's of palaeontologists who have contributed equal to or much more to the science, who don't have their own page (yet). User:Xioa72 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2018 (CET)

That's a reason for them to have articles, not, necessarily, for this person not to have one. There is a specific point about that somewhere, with a shortcut which I don't remember right now (I am fairly new to editing too). Maybe I'm thinking of Other Stuff Exists WP:OSE (or doesn't exist). And that's one reason for AfDs - other editors assess the subject's notability against relevant criteria, and a closing editor or admin assesses the arguments to keep, delete, merge, redirect, etc, and makes a decision (hopefully on consensus). Some areas have very specific agreed criteria, others don't, so the general criteria apply (and sometimes people who don't meet specific criteria do meet general ones). If you are aware of palaeontologists who have contributed a lot who don't yet have articles, if I were you, I would try to put my energy into writing articles about them, rather than arguing for deletion of existing articles. I'm not trying to say don't put articles up for deletion, some definitely don't belong in an encyclopaedia, but that in itself doesn't help expand Wikipedia's coverage of significant people / discoveries / developments in theory, etc. I hope I'm making myself clear! And hopefully other editors will weigh in too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. Yes, it's a very steep learning curve this editing process. I had no idea how difficult it would be; Bakazaka kindly provided me with some links on editing, which I shall follow. Yes, I would like to focus my energies into creating pages, but one must appreciate that such individuals as the one under discussion, whose contribution is rather minor, dilutes the efforts of paleontologists whose contributions are significant in this field. You are most definitely making yourself clear, and I much appreciate your sentiment and comments. It's all very useful. User:Xioa72 (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2018 (CET)

Well, you can make something less dilute by removing the factor you don't want, or adding more of what you do want (I'm using 'want' very broadly there, not trying to imply there's anything personal in it). RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I can see 5 or so mentions in mid-quality RS, but it doesn't quite hit the mark. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Xioa72 Welcome to Wikipedia. Whether or not other more 'deserving' people don't have articles or vice versa has zero relevance to the discussion of whether this person is notable enough. If you know of people who are notable and don't have pages, by all means create those pages! valereee (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for kind welcome, valereee. Yes, I would agree with you, although as included in a comment above, it is important that Wikipedia recognises paleontologists who have genuinely made significant contributions in this field that have aided in the progression of the science as a whole. My intentions are to edit paleontologists whose pages require expansion, sensu Emily Rayfield, Per E. Ahlberg, and to weed out others who do not meet the notability criteria as a paletontologist/academic, as defined by WP:NACADEMIC andWP:GNG, as pointed out by RebeccaGreen; thank you. After which, my intention is to create new pages for paleontologists deemed worthy, but here it is important for one to test the waters to appreciate the difficulty and obstacles that may/may not be in place for adding/removing pages. I hope this is clear and would be deemed useful to the wiki community. User:Xioa72 (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2018 (CET)

comment From the UofM article: here: :"For several decades, scientists have placed polypterids down near the base of the family tree of ray-finned fish, a large group believed to have originated around 385 million years ago.

But a new study that used CT scans to probe three-dimensionally preserved fossil fish skulls shakes up the fish family tree by concluding that the emergence of polypterids occurred much later than researchers had thought. The findings also suggest that the origin of all modern ray-finned fish may have occurred tens of millions of years later than is generally believed.

The international research team was led by Sam Giles of the University of Oxford and includes University of Michigan paleontologist Matt Friedman. A paper summarizing the findings was published Aug. 30 in Nature."

I think that might show notability right there? valereee (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any reason for this page to be retained. One Nature paper should not warrant the erection of a Wikipedia page. Weak. Dino710 (talk) 11.18, 22 December 2018 (GMT) — Dino710 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Huh. Very interesting. First this article is AfD'd by a brand new account. Then the delete is supported by an apparent SPA created to defend the AfD for Dean Lomax, a paleontologist whose article was ultimately deleted. valereee (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not created to just defend the AfD -- apparently created to create the Dean Lomax article in the first place. Edit history was lost when article was deleted, I guess? And a couple weeks ago, deleted a photo of Dean Lomax that had been used in that article. More and more interesting. valereee (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the sourcing could be a little better on this article, but I think she meets notability. Also noting per discussion by Valereee above that the circumstances of this AFD seem to be a bit suspicious. I'm a big advocate of trying not to bite the newcomers but creating a new account at Wikipedia just to start a delete discussion is not a thing we should encourage. Please participate and contribute to the encycopedia first, then maybe move up to admin things like deletion. --Krelnik (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Krelnik, am I missing something regarding your comment of suspicious? I agree with you, but I felt compelled to begin by removing those pages that are not of notability, and then edit and add others. I'm not quite sure why this would be deemed inappropriate? From what I have read, I have followed the appropriate guidelines but am by all accounts a novice wikipedian. User:Xioa72 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2018 (CET)

There is nothing wrong, strictly speaking, with jumping in and starting by nominating an article for deletion, but it's generally better to begin small and learn the lay of the land first. Make improvements to existing articles, hang out in behind-the-scenes discussions and comment on other people's proposals — just get a feel for how the social dynamics work and what standards people typically have in mind. It's the Wikipedia version of learning to walk before you run. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three of the sources have HEADLINES about her research 'shaking up' or 'rewriting' the fish/vertebrate evolutionary tree. That's pretty much the definition of notability for a research scientist. valereee (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to clearly pass criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. It does seem somewhat surprising and sad for a new editor to start off by trying to remove an article with their very first logged-on edit, rather than adding to the encyclopedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only an essay but is worth reading, and is partly relevant here. There are undoubtedly many notable palaeontologists, and other scientists of all disciplines, all eras, both sexes, who ought to have articles and haven't yet. Plenty to work on in a positive direction, and much more rewarding than taking time to propose deletions. PamD 16:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To help other new editors, I've added a hatnote on the failed proposal WP:Notability (science) (WP:SCI) to point them in the direction of the current notability guideline WP:Notability (academics). PamD 16:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The spirit of and reason behind the academic notability guideline is that researchers can be noteworthy because they have done influential work, even if we don't have biographical material devoted to them specifically. I think that the science-media coverage and the L'Oréal-UNESCO award are indicators enough for that, in this case. (Postdoctoral fellowships generally don't count for all that much in the academic-notability evaluation, but getting half a million pounds from the Royal Society doesn't exactly hurt, either.) Nor does the article read as particularly promotional; to me, it's a pretty humdrum academic bio. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just updated the Stats link, which had previously been to Lanham Estates. But I am concerned with its results, as RebeccaGreen clearly voted Keep, above. Could someone with more experience than I please check this out? Oronsay (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. (Summoned via Scottywong's talk page.) Enterprisey (talk!) 15:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I definitely voted Keep! I don't know anything about how the stats are generated, but I can't see anything in what I said to give a Delete reading. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks everybody for responding to my comments and questions, and apologies for being a bit of a pain with all these queries. It is kind of you all to reply in such detail. Before replying to your comments, I decided to look into more behind the notability guideline WP:Notability (academics) and also into the h-index. This individual has a h-index of 8, which is far too low and from the mark of the WP:Prof#C1. Maybe I'm being a little too cynical and stuck in my old ways, but I must admit that based on these guidelines I really don't see how this individual passes these tests. What do you make of this Oronsay? Thanks. User:Xioa72 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2018 (CET)