Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleni Antoniadou (2nd nomination)

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. Delete for BLP reasons: the arguments provided by Jytdog and Eppstein are persuasive. The keep voters have a good point in that there are a great number of references--however, it should be noted that Bizapedia and the website for De Balie (a cultural center in Amsterdam) are not reliable sources, and there are two or three more sources that are not journalistic media.

In the end, if the scandal is negative (and her contribution in it negligible), we should probably propose what the article would be like without that section--and the answer is, there's not much. BLP1E is invoked by a number of participants, and many of the delete-voters point out that she doesn't pass PROF and it is TOOSOON. So. In my opinion the BLP concerns are valid, and I have no choice but to delete. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Antoniadou[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eleni Antoniadou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am taking the unusual step of renominating this article, immediately after it was closed with "no consensus", so the community can consider the BLP issues here, which was not done in the prior discussion. The article, when it was originally nominated, looked like this and as the nomination progressed became even more promotional, becoming this. Around 11 SPA accounts edited the article, as is listed at its Talk page. After cleanup and as of this nomination, it looks like this.

There is a serious BLP issue here. Her initial notability was completely tied by others and by her in reliable sources, to her role in creating an artificial trachea in a lab run by a prestigious professor at University College London that was implanted into a person with throat cancer in 2011 by a prestigious surgeon, and this was widely hailed in the media, and she went on to found a startup to create artificial organs. Lots of hype and glory and awards and hope for her, especially as a young woman in a STEM field.

But turned out that the surgeon who did the first implantation, did that in 8 more people between 2011 and 2014, and seven of the people died (including that first person), and two had their artificial trachea replaced, and there was scandal driven by TV documentaries and mainstream media, and the surgeon was fired by 2016. And the professor under whom she worked in the artificial organ lab at UCL, was fired in 2016 for a different reason. And the startup was bankrupt by 2013. So - her original claim to N, which she and everyone else hitched her wagon to, has crashed burning all around her. She has apparently moved on and is doing something like health policy now, if this comment can be believed.

if this article remains in WP, the content must tell the whole story. In my view this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and the article should not exist. On the other hand, what happened is real and kind of instructive about the risks of biotech and of "glamour" in the world of science and medicine, and everything is well sourced enough. But the community should squarely consider the BLP issues, which it did not do in the just-closed nomination. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, promotional is not a valid deletion reason.198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI totally agree that it's a case of WP:TOOSOON and that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, since she is not and probably will never be an academic and not a public person. Also the article has many inaccurate things about her biographical elements, her education, her startup didn't go bankrupt or had any debt (dissolution doesn't equate with bankruptcy), and once again it's another thing to be in the scientific team that invents the prototype of an organ,a new drug, a new algorithm and another to be part of the translational team (that is usually a pharmaceutical company as it happened in this case as well, that obtained the IP rights) with the clinical team which was from another country that conducts the clinical trial. The way this story is presented is misleading to someone out of the science world. I agree that the page should be deleted because in my opinion it is promotional. Pictex (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) — Pictex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Promotional" is not a valid deletion reason.198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The was just closed days ago. The discussion has been had already. WP:GNG is there based on extensive sources. Repeatedly calling the article "promotional" is to no effect as it is not a valid deletion reason, unless it is so promotional that content cannot be rescued, and that is certainly not the case here. Nominator proposes lots of theories on her notability that are a synthesis of original research. I have to ask myself, with these kinds of refs, would this be happening if she had a man's name? 198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was closed as no consensus, in a discussion where many participants commented before the connection to the Karolinska scandal was clarified. So, now that we understand more clearly what her supposed notability was founded on, it seems reasonable to me to have another discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there's no credible claim of significance {{db-person}} and there's pretence of importance. The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it's shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. If only all scientists were presented with how many patients died when pharmas conducted clinical trials.. Also why is it assumed that her award had been won about this when her startup was producing devices and she works at Nasa or in policy? I find the way it's presented intentional and sexist, but on the same time she needs to do so much more to be seen as a recognised individual worthy of a wiki page at this age. SteCID (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — SteCID (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NB: there is no discussion of any "invention" that Antoniadou made in any RS. The answer to the "why is it assumed...." thing is that it is not an assumption -- it is what the awards and interviews discuss .Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Off to a good start (perhaps) but now WP:Too soon for WP:Prof and not enough in-depth material for WP:GNG. The rest is WP:BLP1E. Credit to the nominator for the investigation, which casts a light on the matter very different to the one in the original article. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
thx but User:Lemongirl942 was more diligent than me in surfacing the issues. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx to her indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
User:Xxanthippe would you please speak to the BLP issues? thx. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note, blp issued addressed in this edit Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPF. It's a borderline case — there's enough material about the subject that one could easily argue for a keep based on WP:GNG, but it's not completely clear because much of this material appears promotional and not truly independent. But if we use this material as the basis for keeping the article, I think we must explain what happened subsequently — the deaths of the implanted patients, destruction of the careers of the higher-level people involved in the scandal, and the failure of her own company that was based on this same line of work. Based on the principle of avoiding harm to subjects in borderline BLP cases, I think we're better off deleting the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that comment. That states exactly the BLP issue that the community should consider, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I argued in the previous AfD, she passes GNG, she does not need to pass PROF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Megalibrarygirl would you please address the BLP issues, which are the focus of this AfD? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Jytdog. My perspective is that if we have reliable sources for the negative aspects of her biography, then it should be added to the biography. I don't think it needs to be deleted. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Megalibrarygirl. This individual passes GNG based upon the significant coverage in neutral, third-party sources. I favor adding additional sources to the article and expanding it appropriately. Montanabw(talk) 02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Montanabw thanks for your comment. Would you please explicitly address the BLP issues here? thx Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY -- Improve the article; quality and notability are separate issues. Even a one-sentence stub can be about a notable topic; this person is notable. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't address the BLP issues. You don't wish to, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Others have explained the situation exhaustively, I do not need to repeat what has been more eloquently stated elsewhere. Also, you do not help your own position by arguing with every single post. We all know what you think; we simply disagree. Also, speaking only for myself, it seems unlikely that anyone's argument will change your mind, so why spend more bandwidth beating the horse? Montanabw(talk) 23:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my comments here have been simply asking people to comment explicitly on BLP. You continue to not read but to talk anyway. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have pondered and returned to this article numerous times, giving it considerable thought. I still believe she passes GNG and Prof is irrelevant as secondary criteria. As with any BLP, "including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back"... Based on policy, then, there is far too much detail given about other people and their actions, which is problematic. It might belong in a biography of Macchiarini, but his actions and sanctions do not belong in a biography of Antoniadou. While factual, it should be removed to talk page, IMO. Three or four sentences would suffice. "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention and Antoniadou founded an NGO organization, Transplants Without Donors, which intended to use tissue engineering to develop artificial organs. Later the patient died, further implantations showed the technology was not yet viable, and the NGO organization was dissolved." Pared back, factual and not focused on someone else's actions. SusunW (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SusunW 2 notes. The startup was a for-profit, not a nonprofit which i assume is what you mean by "NGO". Also we don't know why it went bankrupt. Most startups die because they fail to raise enough money to keep going, and in the Nature interview she says that raising money is their biggest challenge. So that is probably what happened. (if it is, the reason why they couldn't raise money, could be any number of things) Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NGO is a non-governmental organization, they raise funds from private donations, not government funded sources. All organizations secure operational funds from some source. Doesn't mean that they are profit driven. The Nature piece doesn't make any claim that it is profit driven, only that they were seeking funds to forward development of products. Doesn't change the rationale for paring down the information. But, since the nature of the organization is unclear, I modified the text above. SusunW (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the notion that her startup (which is what she and everybody else called it) was a nonprofit. Startups are generally for-profits, and every ref cited in the article talks about it like it was a normal startup that participated in pitch events to investors, was seeking investment, etc. (for example, the forbes blur explicilty says they were seeking angel investors). Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the policy decision of keep or not IMO. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that is true! Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator accepts that the subject meets gng, but then makes the case that because of events that have happened since the references were created, that the notability has been diminished. Notability is not temporary, so even if her company has gone out of business (at least in it's original home state), even if patients died and a surgeon is discredited, if it was notable then it is still notable today. Jacona (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:JaconaFrere No, you have distorted the reason for the nomination. The reason people paid mind to her was really one thing - her connection to that artifical trachea and she started trying to build a career off that (the hope and hype business). There is a real WP:BLP1E thing going on here. And on top of that, that one thing has been discredited - beyond that, evolved into a horrible thing. That she really had nothing to do with. Deal with the actual facts here please. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's deal with actual facts. What did reliable sources do? While I see that you Don't like it, she was noted and discussed significantly by several reliable sources, as you have acknowledged. Deal with the actual notability here, please, not your opinion that it is "a horrible thing". Not your opinion about whether she had to do with it, but did the reliable sources cover it. They did.Jacona (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the nomination, I would understand a vote to !keep - her story is instructive. There is no "not liking" anything here; you have just now misrepresented me for a second time, leaving the first misrepresentation still unaddressed and have not addressed the BLP issues. There is nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold you to that. ;) Jacona (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the nom holds that their reasoning has been misrepresented, that is certainly not my intention. It appears that the nomination is not questioning whether the subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources, but still wants it deleted. In my opinion, that certainly seems to fall in the realm of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, things happened after her recognition, but WP:Notability is not temporary. Jacona (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
!votes that rely on misrepresenting others (third time now) instead of making their own arguments are generally ignored by closers. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, (umpteenth time now).Jacona (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as addressing the BLP issues, they are irrelevant, the sources cover the information. You say it became a "horrible thing", but wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and the thing, horrible or not, is sourced.Jacona (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving your own thoughts on the BLP issues. That is what was needed. As I noted in the nomination, I think keeping is not unreasonable but the BLP issues should be considered directly. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think anyone has provided any evidence of bankruptcy, just "Involuntary dissolution", which is what the state does when you don't pay your registration fee. Bankruptcy is a legal process through which a company discharges its debt on court-provided terms (usually by not paying some or all of that debt). Many companies go bankrupt without being dissolved, and many companies get dissolved without going bankrupt. I've seen no evidence that this company had any debt, much less that it had its debt rescheduled. The alleged bankruptcy is mentioned as part of the noms discussion on BLP issues, but there doesn't appear to have been any bankruptcy.
Yes the content in our article says that the company is in involuntary dissolution. From the perspective of general discussion of the topic, everyday people understand "bankruptcy" to mean the same thing. Which is how I was talking here and at the article talk page. Not a big deal. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to everyday people understanding involuntary dissolution as being the same as bankruptcy, but if they do, it's similar to mixing "died" and "executed". There's a very important distinction.Jacona (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reading the discussions here and on the talk page, I have adapted the suggestion from @SusunW:, adding dates where available to give a better sense of time course and Antoniadou's involvement. I felt it was warranted to specifically address the investigations (briefly) and include the information that the ULC scientists were not considered to have acted inappropriately, rather the surgeon was. I've also removed the interlink to "bankruptcy" (which appeared on the text "involuntary dissolution"). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have reverted most of. Those edits were counter-factual and POV. The story is not pretty but it is what it is. If you think it is unwise to have a NPOV article about this person then please !vote delete. But obscuring what happened is not an option.Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Almost all of which changes appear to have been reverted within minutes. I would appreciate it someone else would review them and decide whether they were of use. They did not contradict the cited facts; they specifically noted that there were conflicts and investigations undertaken, and they were not biased or inaccurate in doing so; they did however summarize extensive information which is not appropriate to the focus of this page. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely did contradict the facts. They were dishonest at worst or sloppy at best. There is no evidence her company was a nonprofit - in fact all the evidence is that it was a for profit. And every one of the nine implants failed. Not "some". The artificial trachea thing was a complete failure. Soft peddling that is not acceptable. It wasn't her fault, but it was her launchpad. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I disagree with Jytdog's characterization of the changes. Neither the number of implants nor detailed information on other people's actions and or failures have anything to do with a biography of her. Policy dictates that the amount of detail be reduced, so I am unclear on why that would be reverted. SusunW (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As previously pointed out, Jytdog you seem to confuse non-profit and NGO. Which is one reason why I linked to NGO in the edits you reverted. Linking (once) to the name of the doctor involved would be appropriate. People could go there or to the sources for the more detailed information. Including the dates is important for establishing who was responsible for what. An extensive discussion of the case is not appropriate here. Quoting above The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. Referring to the investigations should be sufficient for this article. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not the place for this discussion. NGO is not what we commonly call startup companies in WP or in the RW, and the changes violated NPOV up the wazoo. And there was no invention. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually wanted to !vote "keep" but the sad fact is that this person was not specifically the inventor of a successful technology, nor even a credited inventor of a non-successful technology. Nor is there a source crediting her with specific research on that unsuccessful technology, and we manage to run this BLP without naming the other person involved. Going on "aid missions" is something a huge number of people do, and is not something notable here, nor are the other minor facts sufficient to assert notability as such. Really, I want more articles on women in Wikipedia, but this is not a successful choice. Collect (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW. Regarding addressing the BLP issues: agree with JaconaFrere's response. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I vote delete because this person has not contributed enough in science or another field to have her biography listed here. I agree with Mary Mark Ockerbloom on the fact that her startup was producing bioreactor devices and not trachea transplants or any surgeries of any sort. I don't agree with the inventor debate, as a masters student she worked on the prototype, because of course Professors don't even enter labs, but other than that she left for the USA as you already mention on the next paragraph (2010), while other teams got involved in the experimental surgery years later. UCL had nothing to do with the other 9 transplants either, it was completely different university teams and different tracheal prototypes used under that surgeon. I also agree with [[User: SusunW|SusunW] that there is more info on what other people done as if it is her fault. Overall she is too young to have a bio and wiki should have higher standards on who they include. Tzsagan (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-promoting bio (with shenanigans, such as claiming awards not earned). Ifnord (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several of the sources demonstrate considerable international notability. Academic qualifications and/or status are not an issue here.--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ipigott would you please directly address the BLP issues? Either way, but please address them. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. the sources presented in the article demonstrate a level of notability considerably over the wp:gng hurdle Govindaharihari (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Govindaharihari would you please directly address the BLP issues? Either way, but please address them. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Jytdog. I, on your nudge, have had a deeper investigation and have seen some of your concerns, I have moved my understanding and now lean towards a position similar to User:Collects, so I am striking my keep comment. Thanks for your efforts with this. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely passes GNG. Significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. However, the paragraph about the tracheas needs to be pared way back per WP:UNDUE. Most of the facts here are about other people. And the article does seem promotional, but that's an argument for additional editing, not deletion.
    I hasten to add that I think this nom was totally appropriate. I usually decry repeat AfD noms that come so close in time after the original. But the BLP issues here (especially BLP1E and UNDUE) needed to be discussed and weren't covered in the initial AfD. Thank you Jytdog. David in DC (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 21:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For these reasons: 1) She has WP:GNG based on extensive sources, therefore she does not need to pass PROF. 2) As noted above, "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention" 3) She posses international notability 4) As note above, she has significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Dean Esmay (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hmlarson would you please directly address the BLP issues? Either way, but please address them. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but if you went and looked for refs you would find that all the RS are already used (you may find more but I doubt it), and you have not spoken to the BLP issues. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "beauty" of an AFD is the nominator doesn't get to control the outcome nor dictate other editors' assessments ... no matter how many times s/he types the same comments over and over again. Hmlarson (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "all the RS are already used", the article presently has 16 references, as a subject can meet WP:GNG with just 2 or 3 RS, it would be helpful if the nominator or 1 of the "deleters" informed us which ones are not RS or useable for notability, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the focus of the nomination. I don't know what to do about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so which WP:BLP policy does it breach to such a degree that the article has to be deleted? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why does WP have a BLP policy and take it so seriously? We have it, to protect living people. It says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". So if you read the story of this person's life, her career was launched by her involvement in the project of her lab head and this surgeon, which generated a ton of press. (all of the awards she won and every source about her, talks about that work). The surgeon killed 7 people and his work had to be undone on the other two; her lab head turned out to be corrupt. She has (apparently) left the practice of science behind altogether now and is starting over... but there are no RS about that. So.. I said WP:TOOSOON; others have cited BLP1E, see the note below, and see David Eppstein's !vote above. Sure we ~could~ keep this, but a clueful !vote will at least take the BLP issues into account. (and no, we cannot soft peddle what actually happened, if we keep the article - that would be an NPOV violation) Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing the content as per policy is not soft peddling, as you have asserted. It is also a POV to insist on keeping all the minute details about other people in the article. The company dissolved in 2013; 4 years have passed. Those things that happened to others have not destroyed her life or career. The actions of others have not stopped her continuing her career, as she is still actively participating on the world stage in various capacities. [1], [2], [3], [4]. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh she got a job with International Marine Contractors Association! Good for her! As noted she is out of science/regenerative medicine. Left that train wreck behind. I never said that anything stopped her career (it would be very hard to stop a go-getter like this person) - what I have said, and said repeatedly, is that her initial launch and trajectory has crashed and burned. Of course she is starting over and she may go on to do important things. We don't know if she will or not yet. Hence my TOOSOON vote. But if this stays, the full picture of what happened needs to stay and the community will not allow what happened to be buried in phony bullshit. If she goes on to achieve great things, having overcome this initial adversity will only be to her credit. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) (note - i just re-read and realized that this may come across as sarcastic. It wasn't. It is hard to relaunch, and it is great that she has found a job and is restarting. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Cruelty. The subject has had her career and reputation destroyed by the actions of others. I think it is wrong to use Wikipedia to pillory her misfortune as that, in effect, is what is being done here: WP:Do no harm. I would like to see this AfD debate redacted as well per WP:BLP policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment- Hi all, I'm a former student of Eleni from Greece, I wanted to say that this is a very unfair article of her because she has 5 degrees and is a person of poor background that won more than 20 scholarships to be able to go to the university. Also Eleni is known in Greece because she is the first Greek person to ever enter the NASA academy and to be an astronaut instructor, few people know about her medical research more people know about her space research and her philanthropic work at the elderly houses here in Greece. She was very helpful and kind as a teacher too and helped us to apply to universities abroad. I'm sorry I don't know much about wikipedia and it's rules, I just wanted to add this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LefterisP (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — LefterisP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable per sources. BLP issues or NPOV issues, if there are any, do not indicate an article should be deleted; they indicate an article should be cleaned up so I don't see the need for discussion of BLP issues in the RfD context. If a subject is WP: notable deletion is not an option. Discussion on the clean up needed, if any, belongs on the article talk page not here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete -- insufficiently notable, and thus BLP considerations take precedence. Especially given the SPA editing, better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With respect to the BLP issues, the article uses verifiable sources and, in contrast to its previous incarnations, has moved substantially toward a NPOV. It is certainly not an attack page. The subject's notability, however, seems to me questionable. It is true that the basis of that notability is interesting, as it made a complete metamorphosis from "Oh Yeah!" science to "Oh No!" pseudoscience, and in both manifestations it received a fair amount of press. A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement. Lastly, I know many people who spend their entire lives doing good works. It makes them significant, and typically wonderful, but not notable at the level of an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPF. It's a borderline case.Jobas (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I think there is confusion here as to what designates notability per Wikipedia. "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Per the reliable independent sources this subject is notable. Borderline notable is also notable assuming that is the case. What does not matter is the opinion of any editor here as to what is significant, or that the subject experienced failure; if that was published in a RS this is exactly what is notable. We aren't here to determine whether there is science or pseudoscience here. And we can't conflate significance with notability. Our test for notability is the sources. Are the sources reliable, are there enough of them, and what is enough? BLP issues, notability issues, and significance have been conflated with a dressing of opinion on the scientific aspects of a career. We have to clarify and delineate and edit out what does not matter at this point in an article's construction. RS. That's what we need and we have them. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
You are not speaking to the weakness of the sources, their restriction to being based on one small set of events in her life, nor to the actual BLP issues here. There is no pseudoscience under discussion so I don't know why you are mentioning that. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no pseudoscience under discussion...". Per Jobas "A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement." The subject has won numerous awards sourced. We can argue I suppose as to the significance of those awards. And as I said above BLP is not a criteria for deletion so I don't see a need to discuss it. If the discussion is BLP fine but BLP issues, as long as the sources are there, and I believe they are, and so do you apparently, "and everything is well sourced enough" does not point to deletion. These issues are being muddled together here and that is a concern.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Hm. WP:DELETION does speak to BLP somewhat but more importantly BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not. You are not dealing with what BLP says about that. I agree that some people have gone a bit far in characterizing the surgeon's malpractice; people have gone too far as well characterizing what the subject actually has done in her life thus far. It is hard to steer the middle and see what she did do, what happened around that, and where this young woman is in her life. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reference what you are referring to when you say, "BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not." I don't see such reference.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
The whole section Presumption in favor of privacy covers various aspects of how we consider the well-being of the subject above rote application of "there is a source for it so of course we say it" or "there are plenty of sources so of course there should be an article". The issues are hard with this person because all the hype and awards (which are not great sources) focus on stuff she did that fell to pieces. Earlier versions of this article didn't tell the whole story so were warped and fake; with the article telling the whole story we end up with all this WEIGHT on an aborted beginning of a career that has barely begun. Which is why I propose (and am not insisting, but propose) that we delete per TOOSOON. I could see that we would decide to keep it, but I find it ... unfortunate that so few "keep" !voters are really thinking through the BLP issues and the presumption in favor of privacy. A kneejerk "there are plenty of sources so keep" !vote does the subject and the spirit of the community consensus that generated and maintains BLP as a policy, a real disservice. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2017 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleni_Antoniadou_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1083688241"