Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Curran (scientist) (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Curran (scientist)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sean Curran (scientist) (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)

In the first AfD, people hoped that this (still) assistant professor would turn out to be notable. Well, he hasn't. Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abductive, the largest national society for Gerontology has awarded Dr. Curran the 2014 Nathan Shock Award. As such it would seem that the leaders of the field believe him to be notable AND to have made outstanding, arguably significant contributions to the field as defined by the award, "This distinguished honor is given for outstanding contributions to new knowledge about aging through basic biological research". https://www.geron.org/press-room/press-releases/2014-press-releases/371-curran-to-receive-gsa-s-2014-nathan-shock-new-investigator-award
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—In response to the remarks above with regard to notability the following national coverage of Dr. Curran's most recent publication in the high impact journal Cell Metabolism, Pang S and Curran SP. Adaptive capacity to bacterial diet modulates aging in C. elegans. Cell Metab. 2014 Jan 14; 19(1):221-31:
  • Hi, 98. The Cell Metabolism journal is certainly a good one, but according to google scholar the paper has received only only five citations. That's not surprising as the paper just came out, but that means we don't have a way of judging how significant the work is. The USN&WR and FN cites speak more to the competence of the public relations department than to the significance of the research. Wikipedia is very much a trailing indicator when it comes to judging scientific careers. Once it's absolutely obvious that Dr. Curran has had a significant impact in his field, then there will be no difficulty establishing the notability required for an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lesser Cartographies. agreed WRT "trailing indicator", but the consensus in the past was to keep this page. Since those discussions Dr. Curran has more publications, increased media coverage, and national level recognition has been achieved. Please note recent awarding of the Nathan Shock Award from the Gerontological Society of America. https://www.geron.org/press-room/press-releases/2014-press-releases/371-curran-to-receive-gsa-s-2014-nathan-shock-new-investigator-award. I state this to make it "absolutely obvious" (as requested) that Dr. Curran has indeed made a "significant impact in his field". It just seems odd and perhaps inappropriate to suggest removal of this page, in light of the continued success and national recognition of Dr. Curran's research group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.153.171 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—In a very short time, Dr. Sean Curran has been able to publish 3 papers in very high impact journals. Not only has this work been complemented on by top scientists in the field of aging and nutrition, but the translational nature of this work has been highlighted in the media as well in US News, Fox News, Science blogs, Nestle nutrition in addition to local news reports. More recently, in recognition of exceptional research and significant impact in the scientific field by, Dr. Curran has been awarded the prestigious Nathan Shock Award by the largest national Gerontological Society of America GSA. As a relatively new Principle Investigator, Dr. Sean Curran has certainly demonstrated quite a lot to prove the impact of his research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks20588 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 August 2014— Aks20588 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Notability is not gained by writing many mediocre m=papers h = 11 can mean 11 papers with 11 citations each, or , as here it can mean papers with 234, 188, 159, 105 , Three papers with citation count over 100 is notability in this or any other field. Any number of papers with 10 or 15 citations each would not be. People become notable from their best work -- in all fields, not masses of mediocre work. the h index ignores that. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— I agree with the discussion above. Based on a national level award it is clear that notability has been obtained. DGG similarly makes an excellent point with regard to the presence of highly cited (>100 citations) publications.
Presence on F1000;Here is the basis of my opinion as "merits" were requested above. Faculty of 1000 aka F1000Prime provides the scientific community with Recommendations of the best research articles in biology and medicine from a faculty of global experts. F1000Prime filters the literature and highlights top articles as recommended by our faculty of ~6,000 expert scientists and clinical researchers, covering over 40 disciplines. Articles are rated and the faculty provide commentaries to explain why they recommend each article. Dr. Curran's past and current (five articles in total), including the research article (Pang and Curran), which is discussed above, are present on F1000prime and have received "very good" notations. I agree with the comments that media coverage is difficult to gage for significance. However, the fact that world-wide experts in the biological sciences have singled out Dr. Curran's work is a clear indicator of significance and the notability of the work, particularly among the research community.

USCBioGero (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep— In regards to contribution and impact in the field and scientific community, Dr. Curran has been recognized by his colleagues as having demonstrated success in these categories. This past summer, he was nominated by other scientific members to organize the Aging, Metabolism, Pathogenesis, Stress, and Small RNAs Conference for C. elegans, held in Madison, WI. The conference was well-attended and a great success. Scientists came from both the U.S. and internationally to share their work with each other. In light of the positive reception of this conference, it is clear that Dr. Curran has notable impact to the community. This further supports all evidence presented above in regards to keeping this article.
68.181.41.24 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — 68.181.41.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 68.181.41.24 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep despite the apparent self-promotion and sockpuppet invasion here and the WP:WIKIPUFFERY and WP:PEACOCK promotional language on the article, some of which I just cleaned out. The h-index doesn't really tell the whole story: 11 isn't a big number for this area but it could mean 11 papers with citation numbers in the teens or (as in this case) four of them with over 100 citations. I think the highly cited research papers, together with the stories about his research in Wired and the New York Times, are enough. But given the sockpuppetry here and the pattern of promotional edits to the article by anonymous users, some level of protection may be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David for the edits to streamline the page. The original author of the page Jriggs2012 is no longer at the University to assist in media relations. I have added two items to your streamlined version of the article. 1. most recent publication, another will be added once the embargo is lifted. 2. A sentence describing these new discoveries, which have resulted in the awards and media coverage discussed on this AfD page. USCBioGero (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand correctly that you are a university media relations employee? Then you should not be editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of your university. See WP:COI and in particular the parts there about paid advocacy, and limit your and your fellow media relations co-workers' contributions to the talk pages of the articles in question. If you are unwilling to stop this non-neutral editing on your own initiative, then I repeat my call for page protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, No you do not understand correctly. I am not a University media relations employee. Please read my comment above. The original author of this page Jriggs2012 was however in media relations and as I mentioned your edits were appropriate but you have unilaterally removed a significant portion of Dr. Curran's research portfolio, but it is unclear why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USCBioGero (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because edits to the article need to be made by people with a neutral point of view on the subject. Regardless of your job title, your user name (which by the way appears to violate Wikipedia's username policy makes it clear that you have a conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well I am indeed at USC and a biologist and a gerontologist. I'm happy to modify my username. Can you provide me with an option to edit? Fortunately for the sake of this AfD page, User DGG and yourself are in the "keep" category. Please add any page protection you feel necessary to protect the integrity of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USCBioGero (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 September 2014 (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/Sean_Curran_(scientist)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1087616822"