Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Mikovits
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 merge to Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Judy Mikovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined speedy nominee, but appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first reference in Discover. How does this not pass WP:BIO, particularly "received a notable award or honor"?Changing to delete. She's obviously producing notable findings. I don't think she's quite there yet. Her recent work (Chicago Tribune) looks like it might become significant, but isn't yet. Her award isn't quite significant. Her findings themselves seem to pass WP:GNG, but she doesn't inherit notability from them; her findings would have to far surpass GNG for her to be notable.merge seems like the best solution, as stated below by better commentors. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]Weak delete. Being author of a paper that was number 55 on a list of 100 top stories of 2009 in Discover (magazine) is not a 'notable award or honor'. Even making number 1 would be only one event. Web of Science gives an h-index of 18 for "Mikovits J*", which doesn't seem particularly special for a molecular biologist who's been publishing for 20 years, so I don't think it's enough by itself to pass WP:ACADEMIC #1. The institute at which she's director of research appears to be very small: a research team of 7, including 3 grad students. --Qwfp (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Plenty of hits at Google Scholar, and while the ranking by Discover magazine isn't the Nobel Prize, it ain't hay either. I say she's notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mark as a stub and retain. The New York Times link is pay-to-play and should be changed to a standard hardcopy internal footnote. Notable scientific researcher. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepUnsureMerge to XMRV. Mikovits and her findings (even though doubted by many scientists) featured in the Chicago Tribune on 2010-06-07 (see here).--A bit iffy (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article still relates to the same one event that was highlighted by Discover magazine, i.e. her Science paper in Oct 2009 about the XMRV virus. I can't see the need for a separate article on one of the authors. Qwfp (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, though isn't Mikovits similar to Andrew Wakefield who also became notable through one event - a publication of his and colleagues' findings? --A bit iffy (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote WP:BLP1E, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." I think that's the case for Andrew Wakefield, where there's clearly substantial overlap with "MMR vaccine controversy", but there's separate material in each as well, and both articles are fairly long. "Judy Mikovits" is a four-sentence stub, and the material in the first two sentences would fit in XMRV. The remaining two sentences lifted from her bio aren't of much interest if she remains a relatively low-profile individual. Re-reading WP:BLP1E, i see it says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. .... In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Changing my !vote to Merge to XMRV. Qwfp (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, okay then, I agree.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote WP:BLP1E, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." I think that's the case for Andrew Wakefield, where there's clearly substantial overlap with "MMR vaccine controversy", but there's separate material in each as well, and both articles are fairly long. "Judy Mikovits" is a four-sentence stub, and the material in the first two sentences would fit in XMRV. The remaining two sentences lifted from her bio aren't of much interest if she remains a relatively low-profile individual. Re-reading WP:BLP1E, i see it says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. .... In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Changing my !vote to Merge to XMRV. Qwfp (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, though isn't Mikovits similar to Andrew Wakefield who also became notable through one event - a publication of his and colleagues' findings? --A bit iffy (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (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.