Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel W. Nebert

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. After the cleanup on the article and the consensus reached. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel W. Nebert[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:SOAP upload of an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which is technically not allowed at Wikipedia. I say that the best thing to do is WP:TNT in this case. jps (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I have to look into his notability before I make a suggestion.~~ However this article is PR, CV, autobiography all rolled into one. The article needs a clean up. --Devokewater @ 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From his google scholar page he's published a number of papers with more than 1,000 citations each, including papers with only two authors. Agree the current article has lots of detail, much of it unreferenced and much of which also isn't encyclopedic. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subject clearly and easily passes WP:PROF#C1, at least. So the question is not whether he's notable, it's whether the current article is salvageable or not per WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to keep this article as neutral and factual as possible and have gone through discussions already about this. Dr Nebert is a noteworthy geneticist and it benefits the community to have this wiki page. This is not self-promotion.

If you have any suggestions or constructive edits, feel free to make them, but simply nuking the page sounds malicious and is unnecessary.

Thanks -glyphds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyphds (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unquestionably notable, but I do not see how a bio that includes the material in "Early life and education" can imaginably be considered "neutral and factual": "He was convinced that he had come from another planet and was not related to his other family members (his hair was white-blonde while everyone else had dark hair)". Or: "he first considered an 'academic theology' major, but then concluded it was 'not sufficiently quantitative' ". Or the final paragraph in the section "Discovery of the AHR transcription factor" — too long to quote here, but entirely about all imaginable biological connections, and completely unreferenced except for a single ref. to one of his own papers.

There is only one question: should these be trimmed down to size by someone knowledgeable, which would mean retaining the earlier exuberant material in the history, or deleted entirely and started over. Neither would be easy. But I will try removing material, starting with the less technical; if I'm reverted, the solution then becomes obvious. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG!

About a year ago, User:Wabin already trimmed the article down to size, in this edit. Wabin's trimmed version was just 7 kilobytes. Unfortunately, the original page creator, User:Glyphds, reverted Wabin soon afterwards, bringing the article back up to a bloated 80 kilobytes.
I see that you started trimming the article again, earlier this week, which was thoughtful of you.
I've now manually repeated Wabin's wholesale cuts, helping to get the article much closer to a manageable size.
In an important follow-up edit, TJMSmith eliminated the entire unsourced 'awards' list, making the article leaner still. Our article is now down to 5 kilobytes.

All the best, —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the same scenario as Hugh Loxdale, where David notMD, Spicy + others cleaned up the article removing a lot of the fluffy nonsense, PR etc. It should be noted that much of the contributions to this article has been done by SPA’s, (one of them even referred to it as being a biography in their edit). Devokewater @ 10:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, here is the diff where user Nebertdw asks for help in uploading his autobiography. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never spotted that one Russ Woodroofe (talk), I was referring to the comment on Glyphds edit: Special:Diff/903770836. Devokewater @ 13:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in its current form after rewrite --hroest 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so that references - if any available - can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I restored the reference for the principal honor. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit too technical, is it possible to simplify? --Devokewater@ 07:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it was a near case for WP:TNT when presented for deletion, the article is much improved after work from non-COI editors. The subject is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1 and C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy pass per his fellowship of AAAS. PainProf (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see 22 papers with more than 900citations. Clearly notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:HEY it has been called for close. scope_creep^Talk 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. There's one citation-needed tag left as I write, but that's hardly cause for deletion. As I wrote much earlier, he clearly passes WP:PROF. And if the promotionalism returns, we have a good enough version to revert to and protect rather than needing to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been cleaned up to a hgh standard Devokewater@ 00:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Can reconsider starting again if additional unwarranted material is re-added. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2020 (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.