Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuchi Anand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Fundamentally there are two arguments here. Whether the subject passed BLP - and consensus is it doesn’t but the source analysis debunking the gng argument. Much of the delete argument about the gng just asserts which is a weak argument against a compelling analysis based on policy. Secondly, does the subject pass ACADEMIC, and there is no consensus that she does. That only leaves one outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchi Anand

[edit]

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

Shuchi Anand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG notability guidelines; nothing in this bio that stands apart from a typical clinical researcher/professor. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vikram Vincent 11:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Keep per Ritchie333 and Beccaynr. The article in its current form shows notability. Vikram Vincent 22:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prer nom and can't find anything to justify the article. Taung Tan (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 15:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all above, fails in satsifying WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pasting my Talk comment on her notability here: The only criterion that seems applicable is NPROF, but her citation record is basically just a bit over standard fair for investigators publishing in nephrology. This is especially true when it's purely clinical trajectories, cohort studies, international consortia, etc. where basically twice a year someone belonging to some massive clinical working group gets the whole department (the attendings, the chair, rotating med students, random passers-by...) alphabetical coauthorship on a 300-author annual report. Seriously, there are people with 50 papers who have over 10,000 unique coauthors. Her citation metrics (in an extremely high-citation field) are around the median among 150 of her coauthors (who have 20+ papers) and well below the average: Total citations: average: 6927, median: 1378, Anand: 1593. Total papers: avg: 129, med: 65, A: 66. h-index: avg: 27, med: 17, A: 20. Highest citation: avg: 957, med: 257, A: 512. I'll also throw in the uninformative but highly amusing parameters of number of unique coauthors: avg: 1896, med: 884, A: 884; and coauthors per paper: avg: 15, med: 8, A: 17, top score: 218. Plus some links to articles on authorship issues in clinical research. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: Going back through her coauthors, I found that many of them were accidentally separated into different entries by Scopus, so when I navigated to a person's profile by clicking the author name from a particular paper I wasn't necessarily getting their full stats. This doesn't affect Dr. Anand's metrics since I got to her profile by directly searching her (so separate profiles would show up in search results). I have therefore reassessed the middle ~100 of her 150 coauthors as ordered by highest citation, finding 24 who actually had 1 or more other significant Scopus profiles, and have added those values and manually recalculated their h-indices. The new stats, which are definitely still below the actual numbers since I didn't reevaluate everyone and in particular did not reevaluate the top 30 (who would be most likely to have secondary profiles), are as follows: Total citations: avg: 8944, med: 2105, A: 1593. Total papers: avg: 155, med: 72, A: 66. h-index: avg: 31, med: 21, A: 20. Highest citation: avg: 1151, med: 325, A: 512. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a quick Google News search and found multiple hits explaining her contributions to health and particularly the COVID-19 pandemic, including this, this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've revised the article and added sources, including from Stanford News, CNN, Bloomberg, and Newsweek. Per WP:NPROF criteria 1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources," (my emphasis) e.g. "pioneering a scalable sampling strategy that offers a blueprint for standardised national serosurveillance in the USA and other countries with a large haemodialysing population," per Imperial College London professors Barnaby Flower and Christina Atchison, but this also looks like WP:BASIC notability due to the amount of news coverage, including the sources noted by Ritchie333. Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Other sources added include USA Today with commentary from other scientists discussing the importance of the study, and brief commentary about the study in a December 2020 Brookings report. Beccaynr (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, while the news coverage is certainly more persuasive, it's also limited to the one study--is being lead author on a paper that made a brief splash enough to establish notability? The level of commentary is pretty standard for papers published in high-profile journals, and especially in COVID-19 there will be heightened broadcasting of all clinical results. And the response from other scientists has been much more tempered -- see this Nature Reviews Nephrology review of the paper Although this study demonstrates the potential of monitoring infectious disease prevalence in dialysis populations, the findings should be interpreted with caution.. JoelleJay (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That review also states, "However, at the very least, surveillance provides invaluable information on asymptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients on haemodialysis to better understand local outbreaks and guide improvements for infection prevention in this extremely vulnerable patient group," and the 'caution' described sounds similar to what the study authors disclosed, per the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at U. Minn. The reason why I also suggest WP:BASIC notability is the reported impact of the study, not just its scientific method, e.g. by Brookings in December 2020, which described the study as "Perhaps the best currently available estimate" in a report about the impact of misinformation. The study also appears to align with a theme in Anand's work to examine systemic bias in the prevalence and outcomes of disease, and in this instance, to advocate publicly for targeted public health interventions (e.g. CIDRAP, The Print). In addition, both the Brookings report and the USA Today article discuss the pandemic information landscape, with the USAToday article offering public health detail and many other articles picking up on how the study helped undermine the idea of a natural 'herd immunity' quickly being possible. From my view, there has been an unusual level of news coverage, apparently due to the significance of the study for several reasons, and per Newsweek and Bloomberg, it sounds like the study is still underway, so erring on the side of keeping this article and perhaps revisiting it after the next phase of this high-profile study is published makes more sense given the amount of attention it has already received, because it is "notable and almost certain to take place," per WP:CRYSTAL. Beccaynr (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the study itself received a modest amount of coverage; my concern is that it's just the one study, and she herself isn't being profiled in-depth in these sources in a way that would meet BASIC. NPROF C1 demands either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates, with the clarification that citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. I don't think the lay media coverage is sufficient, and so far the academic citations fall far short of notability. I'll also add that the "pioneering concept" is also too soon to evaluate as truly impactful -- it certainly does not meet C1 requirements of In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. That other professors have been quoted praising the study does not count toward this metric. JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary from Flower and Atchison was published in The Lancet, and the Nature Reviews Nephrology review seems to suggest the work is still innovative, even if only on a more limited basis - it may take more time for additional peer review, but Anand's work has already received some in-depth academic attention. Also, per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," which is why the initial burst of coverage in late Sept. 2020, as well as the mention in the Dec. 2020 Brookings report, seem to further support notability pursuant to that guideline (and perhaps criteria 7 of WP:NPROF), and may become additionally supported after the next phase of the study is published. Based on the news coverage and the peer review so far, this appears to be a notable accomplishment beyond the 'average professor,' due to the nature of the research, both its methods and its findings, and if it is a borderline case, it may be more clear in the near future, because of additional peer review, and/or news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The write-ups in The Lancet and Nature Reviews Nephrology are routine paper summaries -- the praise uses the standard "this study was promising" language and does not reflect the actual impact the research has had or will have (because it is too soon to tell whether the sero-surveillance method is actually feasible in or transferable to other research). They are also not by any stretch "in-depth". The approach would need substantial usage and/or discussion within either experimental articles or broad reviews for Anand to qualify C1 with the "innovation" criterion. And C7 is certainly not satisfied by her being quoted by a handful of news reports on the study; that is not frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it marginally increases her notability? Although obviously very far from sufficient for C6. JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Critera 6 states it "may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of [...] director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute," so I'm not sure how it is obvious that this criteria is not met. Beccaynr (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious because the very next words in that quote disqualify it: director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university). The Stanford Center for Tubulointerstitial Kidney Disease is not independent from Stanford, and furthermore is apparently not even notable. JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is my misreading of the criteria, and I apologize. But I am glad you pointed at WP:ORG, because it is a guideline that specifically addresses systemic bias in the WP:MULTSOURCES section. Anand's work, including with the Stanford Center, has a particular focus on marginalized people and communities, so her citation metrics could be seen as more substantial considering the subject matter her research has typically focused on. Similarly, when she led research developed from her particular expertise that immediately provided a significant benefit during the pandemic when there was otherwise no reliable national data in the US, and may yet provide additional benefit due to its methods and/or the next phase of the study, this seems like the fewer number of sources that could be considered for determining notability per the reasoning of WP:MULTSOURCES. Per WP:IAR, it would seem to improve Wikipedia to include articles for scientists who focus on underserved populations and then have a notable accomplishment recognized by WP:MULTSOURCES; it would further seem to be a detriment to Wikipedia to delete this article while recognizing that additional peer review could happen, and that the next phase of the study is pending, and we don't have all of the evidence of notability available at this time, but can reasonably anticipate that it will exist soon. The general notes from WP:NPROF also states that "The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus," and WP:ORG's acknowledgement of how systemic bias can be considered seems like a reasonable precedent to rely on in this instance. Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are suggesting is we should apply the section of the guidelines for notability of organizations that reads systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world as a precedent for including Anand because some of her research, despite being conducted through, funded, and/or reported by a major elite American university, might suffer from systemic bias due to covering underserved populations? Or are you saying that the reasoning used to justify a one-source article -- that is, that we can be more flexible in assuming something in a developing country may actually be notable to people in that country without being reported on by standard RS -- can be used to argue that a person whose research topics include underserved demographics is more deserving of an article so we should relax our standards? Or maybe that because the functional outcome of having <relaxed criteria for how many sources are needed for an organization to be notable in a developing country> is an increase in Wikipedia's coverage of minority subjects, we can say any other method of arriving at that outcome (or even outcomes only indirectly related to minority representation) is also valid, regardless of whether it is backed by policy? Is there any evidence demonstrating people whose research in some way touches on or benefits underserved groups are systemically ignored by RS to a degree that we can weight what does exist more heavily? And would that even apply to Dr. Anand or biographies in general?
And regarding the CRYSTAL claims, we could assume a lot of things about a lot of academics that might make them notable in the future, but it is far from certain that her seroprevalence approach will see sufficiently widespread use, or that this possible "second phase"(where are you finding this?) of her study will even be published let alone receive the same level of attention in a much less urgent pandemic landscape. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a general matter, I recognize that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and due to the policies and guidelines, will tend to replicate systemic bias that tends to exclude topics and people from significant coverage. On the other hand, there is WP:IAR and some flexibility built into the guidelines, which allows us to discuss and form consensus about notability, including what is notable for a citation count in a given field. In Anand's field, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that her citation count could be considered notable given her particular focus. It's not simply nephrology, it's often examining people who live in polluted areas, including in India, Sri Lanka, and California. So this is not about relaxing standards, it is calibrating them to consider the given field, and how researching marginalized groups may generally be a marginalized research area, so her citation count could be considered more notable than if she was simply compared to nephrology researchers generally. I mention WP:ORG because it is an example of a guideline that suggests it is possible to make this calibration when assessing sources, and I use the term 'precedent' because that is the language of NPROF, and it is a 'precedent', at least in the persuasive sense of the term, for calibrating a guideline according to the subject - in this instance, researching marginalized communities experiencing specific health impacts seems to be something that could be considered when determining notability in an academic field.
With regard to CRYSTAL, we've been talking about how recent the first phase of the study is and how additional peer review could occur, and I cited Newsweek and Bloomberg above as reports about the next phase of the study, which will apparently be monitoring participants for "months." One of the reasons Anand's September 2020 study received widespread coverage was because it helped debunk ideas about herd immunity, and in the US, if there is unjustified complacency about the pandemic, then her next study may receive widespread coverage again. Given the amount of coverage so far, and the amount that appears reasonable to expect, it at least seems premature to delete her article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis of Dr. Anand's citation metrics was already calibrated to her specific nephrology focus, as it looked at 150 of her coauthors who actually do research (as opposed to techs and students). However, NPROF requires The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, clarifying that For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. The language used shows this restriction is to exclude claims of notability based on impact in a tiny topic Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. Additionally, you have not offered a compelling precedent that researchers working with marginalized groups are evaluated by a different notability standard, and there is no evidence to suggest Anand's research impact is actually affected at all by the systemic bias defined by Wikipedia. In fact, because I suspected this was a completely spurious allegation, I revisited Anand's top 50 papers and analyzed only those coauthors who worked with her on the 21 papers with terms like "poverty" or "developing country" or "low-resource", etc. This resulted in my adding 120 new coauthors (≥20 papers). Looking at just those new authors, not even including the ones who were also already in my prior analysis, these are the metrics: Total citations: avg: 13695, med: 6224, A: 1593. Total papers: avg: 200, med: 141, A: 66. h-index: avg: 41, med: 35, A: 20. Highest citation: avg: 1742, med: 709, A: 512. So, no, nephrologists studying underserved populations don't have worse citation metrics than standard nephrologists. They are in fact decidedly more published and cited. Also, the new grand total for all 270 coauthors is: TC: avg: 11224, med: 3999, A: 1593. TP: avg: 177, med: 105, A: 66. HI: avg: 36, med: 28, A: 20. HC: avg: 1431, med: 514, A: 512.
The Bloomburg and Newsweek support for "a phase 2 study" is essentially repeating the generic "current and future research" agenda every scientist mentions when discussing their results. There is no timeline for when this next study will be released or even announced, just the vague assertions researchers plan to monitor the July study's participants for months to come and data collected before and after social distancing policies, or mask mandates, are implemented can be useful to determine which approaches are working, and which are not. Those statements do not address the scope of this future study, they have not been covered significantly by independent sources (a quote from Anand about how useful the data may be is not independent), its notability is far from assured, and speculation about how notable the results may be is decidedly OR. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line here is whether Dr. Anand is exceptional among medical scientists: The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. Of the 270 coauthors I analyzed, 176 have a higher total citation count; 172 have the same or higher h-index; 139 have a higher highest-cited paper. Of the middle ~150 coauthors, these are the averages (and median) for 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-highest-cited papers: 1776 (780), 938 (475), 709 (352), 567 (262), 470 (237). Anand: 512, 143, 75, 67, 63. Citations are extremely high in this field, and Dr. Anand is just not at a level where her notability and impact are even at the median, let alone clearly above her colleagues. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thorough response - I'm not trying to be spurious, but instead trying to communicate in a language you are fluent in, but in which I only have a basic working knowledge. My bottom line is that I have substantially revised the article and added many independent and reliable sources; I believe that WP:BASIC is met, and that this is not WP:BLP1E, because the first phase of the study was significant (based on the wide national and international coverage, the various reasons why it was reported (e.g. debunking rapid herd immunity, exposing racial and economic disparities, providing the first reliable national data on infection rates), and the response from the scientific community in the news, as well as The Lancet and Nature Reviews Nephrology), and Anand's role was substantial and well-documented in the various reports. The coverage also persisted because it was referenced in a later Brookings report with additional commentary about its significance. It also seems possible that Anand will not remain low-profile due to her additional COVID-19 research, which can be high-profile. Even without that possibility, sufficient notability appears to be established. Beccaynr (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate the effort you have put into your responses, and hope I haven't been too aggressive or dismissive in my arguments. My interpretation of BASIC is that the subject needs to be the topic of discussion -- while the study would meet the biography notability guidelines (significant in-depth coverage in 2+ independent RS), Dr. Anand herself does not, and the study itself does not meet the relevant criteria for a medical study article. That she was first author or has been quoted in relation to the study several times does not change the fact that none of the coverage is directed towards her, therefore failing BASIC. Thousands of new journal articles get equivalent attention every week; Nature has been highlighting new COVID-19 studies almost daily since March 27. Most of those articles received as much or more science and lay media attention as Anand's article, with none to my knowledge leading to a Wikipedia page on the first author. We should also be careful about conflating first authorship with senior authorship -- in Anand's paper the senior authors are Julie Parsonnet and Glenn Chertow (who are also the only authors listed as "Prof" in the article). Generally while the media and scientific press use the first author as shorthand for a particular study, the senior author is the person acknowledged as the driving force -- see, e.g., Shinya Yamanaka winning the Nobel for papers first-authored by Kazutoshi Takahashi (no wiki page), Randy Schekman winning when Peter Novick (scientist) was first author on multiple papers, James Rothman winning when Thomas Söllner (no page) was first author on 2 big papers... JoelleJay (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been one of the most interesting discussions I've participated in at AfD, and I think it helps that we are arguing with the evidence, not the person making the case. I also think WP:BLP1E anticipates that events can make the people involved notable enough for a Wikipedia article under certain conditions, and as noted above, Anand appears to meet those conditions. In addition, WP:BASIC states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and CNN has a focus on Anand, both by naming her as the leader of the study, and when quoting Flower and Atchison from The Lancet ("Anand and colleagues deserve credit for pioneering..."); on Sept. 25, Bloomberg quotes Anand discussing the study, and on Sept. 28, Bloomberg refers to Anand for comment related to "novel insights" about the disparate impact on "oldest, the poor and minority populations." The Print offers a longer and more in-depth quote from Anand on this issue, while US News & World Report only has a name-check for Anand as lead author, but USAToday quotes Anand commenting on the limitations and future of the study, and Newsweek offers a more in-depth report on the limitations, applicability, and future of the study based on its more extensive interview with Anand, including how it relates to "Some U.S. officials have floated the concept of herd immunity as a possible strategy to manage the national outbreak." WP:GNG also states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so I believe that this level and depth of coverage sufficiently supports Anand's notability. I also think the work that has been done to develop the encyclopedic content of this article helps situate Anand's notable work in the context of her career, and supports keeping the article per WP:IAR because it improves Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has definitely been a lot more respectful and academic than most AfD disagreements! I still believe the criteria for BASIC are not met in this case due partly to BLP1E, re: Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. Here, the study itself isn't even notable. The media mentions you give above are also trivial coverage, as she is treated just like any other author of a scientific article: her quotes are exclusively for the purpose of communicating the study, and only the barest supporting biographical information is used for context. The paper made a brief splash (the 5 sentences on the results in the appendix of the Brookings article is assuredly NOT evidence of sustained media coverage, both because the mention is so minimal, and because it is just a citation in a research article, not a news piece), it might have even informed policy (unverified speculation), but a) there is a reason coauthorship on academic papers is treated differently from that of sole authorship of a creative work (NAUTHOR) -- published summaries of/commentary on the work by other researchers are not equivalent to book reviews, as the intellectual contributions cannot be attributed just to the first/senior authors (plus such summaries are much, much more routine for research articles than creative works); b) none of the news coverage is about her whatsoever: we have C7 specifically because academic experts regularly consulted on subjects in their field do not normally meet GNG since they are not being profiled themselves (Dr. Anand doesn't meet C7 as she is not frequently being sought out for her expert opinion, she's just being quoted as an author of a paper); and c) a coauthor must be separable from their work, otherwise we would have tens of thousands of articles on people who first-authored and were abundantly quoted regarding one or two popular research publications, but whose impact overall is not notable.JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 05:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully last comment. Here are some AfD precedents demonstrating a) broad coverage of someone's intellectual output does not satisfy C1 or GNG; b) being quoted extensively regarding one's own research does not suffice for C1, C7, or GNG; c) SIGCOV of the person that is related to one study or event does not meet GNG criteria (per WP:SUSTAINED); and d) even being interviewed or nontrivially profiled in articles giving in-depth coverage of one's solo-authored/founded company/research isn't enough for GNG.
  1. Christopher Kaelin: Consensus was that, despite his research being covered in RS, there was no SIGCOV of Kaelin himself -- in particular, it's noted that i) while one major science journalism piece on his results actually details his specific role in the study, it's still not evidence he personally should have an article; and ii) quotes by Kaelin about his research are NOT considered SIGCOV for his biography.
  2. Loubna Bouarfa: Extensive interviews and quotes by her in many in-depth articles profiling her AI platform -- even when those articles dedicate several paragraphs to her biographical background -- are considered NOT sufficient for GNG or C7.
  3. Laure Zanna: At the time of the AfD she was quoted in more and better RS regarding her research results than Anand.
  4. Ramesh Rao: The distinction between SIGCOV and trivial coverage is highlighted -- even a highly-reported published diatribe on him personally by a very famous academic, in addition to multiple news media discussing what he has said at various points in his career, were not enough here for GNG.
  5. Caroline Ford: Result was keep, but only after sources were found demonstrating she was profiled in detail in multiple RS for a particular award AND for one of her papers, AND her more recent research had also been covered.
  6. Mandana Seyfeddinipur: An example of someone who just barely eked out C7 notability; the coverage used for this claim spanned many years and included an article on her research as a whole as well as her expert opinion on a topic, several interviews, and multiple articles extensively quoting her as an expert.
  7. Tameka Hobbs: She had a notable academic book with multiple reviews, and has been consulted as an expert in multiple RS, but still didn't meet C7, NAUTHOR, or GNG and is now a redirect to her book. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:OUTCOMES, "previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change," and the above-cited discussions seem to contain various supports for keeping this article, (e.g. there is robust biographical content, Anand is a first author in a variety of studies) and seem distinguishable from this one, because none appear to have had a notable impact on the political and public health crisis (CDC/IDSA, October 17, 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic similar to Anand after developing a career that prepared them for such an accomplishment and notable ongoing work. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no biographical content from sources that can contribute to notability. None of the independent sources provide more than trivial coverage of Anand, much less the extended coverage required by BLP1E. Of the 23 references in the article, 11 are from Stanford (not independent), 2 are from the Fogarty award (biographical info not independent), 1 is from a research article (where the study is mentioned in the appendix), and 9 are news reports (spanning all of 5 days) on the study she coauthored.
Analysis of news sources

Of those 9, the 2 from Bloomberg (authored by the same person, 3 days apart) mention Anand once each, with the first containing a single direct quote from her as well as a direct quote from senior author Julie Parsonnet; the other statements attributed to her come from the paper's press release (not independent). CNN mentions Anand only as lead author (and quotes Professor Parsonnet's statement from The Lancet's news release on the study). US News mentions Anand as lead author (and quotes the same statement from Professor Parsonnet) as part of a larger article discussing the global death toll. The Print quotes a statement from Anand from the paper's press release. UMN/CIDRAP uses the same press release quotes from Anand and Parsonnet. USA Today mentions Anand, senior author Glenn Chertow, and Maria Montez-Rath, with brief quotes from the first two. Newsweek directly quotes Anand's description of the study's impact and repeats Parsonnet's quote from the release. CNBC uses a mix of brief direct and press release quotes from both Anand and Montez-Rath, and has more extensive (and rather critical) commentary on the study by Eli Rosenberg, who remarks it's at least consistent with all the other studies that have shown the US isn't close to herd immunity.

Being first author on biomed studies in general is way, way less important than senior authorship. Anyway, her highest first-author paper is cited 78 times, which is decent but nowhere near indicative of significant impact in this extremely high-citation field. Taking 50 people from the bottom quarter and 20 from the top quarter of her coauthors (as ordered by highest-cited paper overall), the average best FA citation is 477, median is 137, Anand is 78. And this is with heavy weighting for the median towards her least-cited coauthors. It's true that none of the other AfD examples are literally exactly comparable to Anand, but surely a senior author being quoted by major newspapers/magazines (e.g. NYT, The Guardian, Popular Mechanics, Nat Geo etc.) regarding three separate papers on climate change is having a bigger impact on policy and scientific discourse than a first author quoted in a few newspapers for one study? JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shuchi_Anand&oldid=1014559075"