Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Seal

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. One (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altered to delete per the deletion policy and per OTRS #2009051110036961, which states "Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." I have corresponded with One privately about this and he is fine with this alteration. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Seal

I'm not sure about this one. Seems notable, however unsourced and possibly promotional. Guy0307 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article. Each publication citation is referenced in a professional peer reviewed journal. What is not sourced? This is not promotional as Dr. Seal does not have a private clinical practice she is promotion. Her work benefits veterans directly. Her work is noteworthy as it researches and promotion new treatment methodologies for disabled veterans.

Additionally, this article meets the of Notability in Academics by meeting criteria 1, 2, 6, 7. Please direct other questions to me at rthaler at yahoo dot com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidthaler (talk • contribs) — Reidthaler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you quite understand what sources are. Take time to read WP:RS and WP:CITE. One more thing: taking a Wikipedia discussion away from Wikipedia to discuss it isn't encouraged around here. (Oh, and I'm undecided about the deletion.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is basically completely unsourced. It is a very detailed c.v. sort of article and I doubt that much detail could be properly verified. If the article is kept it needs to be severely cleaned and pruned. I am also concerned about Reidthaler's conflict of interest in promoting Karen Seal. Drawn Some (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As noted by Guy0307 and Drawn Some, the SPA who created the article apparently made a messy attempt at putting up a CV for the subject, with no references or sources. Also, it seems that the subject herself requested deletion of the article. Having said, the subject seems to meet WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), although not to the extent that would justify keeping the article against her wish. Citation impact indicates notability; so does news coverage, to a certain extent.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ weak keep First, WP:PROF. According to Scopus, she has 23 published peer-reviewed papers,; the highest have 122 citations, (DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200107193450311) then 63, 56, This would often be enough for notability as an academic researcher using criterion 1, except that she isn't the principal author of any of the 3 . Notability according to WP:BIO--similarly not shown. She has apparently requested deletion, but even in a borderline case, it shouldn't be up to the subject. DGG (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checking the Google News articles, very few are about her, and fewer of these are in RSs. The one in Time [1] , however, is significant, and just enough to meet WP:BIODGG (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, her research has received more than enough news coverage ("karen+seal"&cf=all here) to demonstrate notability. I agree this would be borderline if only citation counts were considered, but evidence of impact shows up in other ways. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. --Saynara (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how DGG deduces that she is not the principal author of the papers. If he means first listed author then that is a very different thing. If the subject requests deletion then I support it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

the principal author is either first or last in biomedical papers. Normally it is indicated by the author to whom correspondence should be sent, and is marked. It can be confirmed by seeing which of the authors is the one with the most papers, and the one whose laboratory it is. It never is any of the authors in the middle. DGG (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that DGG's position on this matter is very wide of the mark and in no way reflects any consensus among scholars. It could be an important issue for those involved with bibliometry but if I reply here the discussion will get lost when the AfD is finalised. I will discuss the matter on my talk page in due course. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I do not like to focus too much of authorship order because sometimes the senior author is a manager of talented researchers, and not the one originating the ideas. Having said that, DGG is correct about the position of the main (or senior) author’s name in a list of co-authors.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep Appears to meet WP:PROF, just. ukexpat (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of independent coverage. this article, for instance, talks about how she and her colleagues decided to set up a combined primary care/mental health VA clinic for Iraq War veterans. This one places her in the "vanguard of...a public health crusade".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added references from Google scholar and news. --Saynara (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hard to say, may meet Academic Notability CriteriaJohndowning (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It is difficult, if you are not familiar with the particular study, to determine the lead researcher and author. Often, the person listed first in the article is done for political purposes. Please keep this in mind when you make your decision to keep or delete.
Delete for the second time. If the material placed on my talk page is to be believed, the LP had no part in writing the article and wants it deleted. If Osama bin Laden requested deletion of his article on the grounds that it invaded his privacy we would refuse because of his extreme notability. However, in a case of lesser notability such as this, we should defer to Wikipedia's Presumption in favour of privacy see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The article contains nothing about her private/personal life and is focused entirely on her work, which consists of publicly funded research. The article, if edited properly, would contain nothing that is not already available elsewhere on the internet. Even in its current version there's no blp/privacy problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments. It is common ground that this article is not of critical importance. The body politic will suffer little detriment by its deletion and the benefit will be that the wishes of a LP are respected. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Have we actually gotten a communication directly from Dr. Seal yet? Or are we just going on what the OP says?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am aware just on what Reidthaler says. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per DGG. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.