Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hewitson

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Hewitson[edit]

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

A well-respected scientist, but one who, unfortunately, is primarily known for her deeply flawed research linking vaccines to autism, none of which has received any coverage outside of the anti-vaccine fringe and skeptical blogs, neither of which are reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 20 is enough to pass WP:Prof#1 in bio-med. The claim that the subject has (not) received any coverage outside of the anti-vaccine fringe and skeptical blogs, neither of which are reliable sources is nonsense. If the subject is fringey this makes her more notable not less. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Xxanthippe's rationale here is sound. What is slightly concerning is that there is no hint in the article of the reasons for her notability, just some heavily guarded references to how she became embroiled in the controversy. As I understand it this is not simply a case in which her research was taken up (and possibly misused) by others, but she took an active part. It would be good if a detached but knowledgeable editor could take a look - there should be no hatchet job here, but some indication as to why people might have seen reference to her. That is purely an editing matter though. --AJHingston (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article desperately needs improvement. I tried reading it but it mostly was very hard to understand. Either a rewrite or a delete will suffice. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. Any article issues identified by the nom or MrRatermat2 can be addressed by cleaning up the article and adding references. --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xxanthippe. She's a notable scientist. She did once write a paper for Neurotoxicology with Andrew Wakefield and others ("Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight") that was later withdrawn. However, looking at her citations, she is primarily known for work completely unrelated to vaccines. I have no idea which way news coverage goes (as of today Google News is no longer part of the {{Find sources}} template). -- 101.119.15.2 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And I'm not sure the somewhat confusing nom provides a valid deletion criterion. -- 101.119.15.2 (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my nomination was somewhat unclear. Rather than "well-respected scientist" I should have said "has published papers in well-respected journals". However, as per WP:PROF criterion 1, Hewitson's research hasn't, as far as I can tell, been discussed in independent reliable sources. Incidentally, the sourcing in the article is very limited, consisting as it does of links to blogs, her page at the Johnson Center for Child Health and Development, and her page at the Pittsburgh Development Center. If you feel she is notable, then additional sourcing is in order. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake look at the reason for my vote and read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Vaccination has always been controversial, and I have no doubt that Dr Hewitson's name will continue to be quoted in that context for years to come, and for that reason people will want to look her up. That, in itself, justifies giving her an entry. In its way, the information that she is a humble toiler in the field is as helpful as being told that she was awarded a major prize. It is also, in my view, why such articles need to be seen to be scrupulously objective and accurate; if it appears to be taking a position on her work, giving undue weight to some aspect of it, or taking sides in the controversy it will be mistrusted and worse than useless. The trouble with the notability criteria is that because people naively regard an entry in Wikipedia as an honour, might like to create one as a present for a colleague or a loved one (or a detested teacher) or become jealous of a colleague who has one when they do not, there becomes something of an obsession here with objective criteria and demonstrable fairness. But that can miss the point that the measures are often only proxy ones and it has nothing to do with merit, just with how likely users are to expect to find them here for good or ill. --AJHingston (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Xxanthippe's argument, I withdraw my nomination. She does meet WP:PROF and her article should therefore be kept. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jinkinson. I wish that more nominators would do as you do in the same circumstances. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I realize she meets WP:PROF, however I would still like to see some more independent sources than a few blogs, a newspaper article which mentions her in one sentence, and her faculty page. If she is notable, this shouldn't be too hard to find. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake look at the reason for my vote and read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2013 (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.