Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Patrick

Add links
Source: 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. Too. MUch of the keep argument is assertion. This is a blp that means it must have decent sourcing about the subject. The argument that sources are about the research have not been well refuted so, with the onus on the keep side, this does fall into delete territory. I would note that DGGs analysis is as compelling as always Spartaz Humbug! 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosed as No Consensus, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 1

Rhonda Patrick

Rhonda Patrick (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)

Except Youtube, I couldn't any news where claims of her work can be verified. No reliable sources expresses an identity. Literally none of the sources used actually say anything about why the good biochemist is notable. Ireneshih (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to say an unambiguous Keep - seems to have a significant publishing record, including in the best scientific journals, pointing to point 1 of WP:NACADEMICS, however, I have noticed several of the best references in the list do not seem to list R. Patrick. I thought at first that the explanation was that she changed her name from Perciavalle, RM (although I can't see this in the text), however that does not explain references 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.. and so on.. where neither name is cited as an author. So either a) the editor of the page does not understand how to cite papers (ie not those in which the subject was not a named author) or b) is trying to give the page more weight than it deserves. It seems to me that the name she used in her papers was "Patrick, RP", so any papers cited which do not have that in the authors can be ignored. So we now need a proper list of published work by Patrick, RP. I can only find the two in pubmed. Ignoring all the other crap on the page, I'm struggling to see how that can be considered notable (and tbh, the crap is pretty misleading IMO). JMWt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you figured out the thing with the name. You have also misunderstood the references. Only a few are to her scientific papers, and for a full list you need to go to Google Scholar, Web of Science or her CV. The remaining references are media sources, such as the Boston Globe article, that covers her and her research. Those are exactly the type of sources that show notability. Her research is all over the news!! Martinogk (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another point - the page seems to suggest that she is indeed Rhonda Perciavalle, who did a doctorate at the University of Tennessee (ref 5), but that ref calls her RM Perciavalle. The foreword refers to her husband as Patrick. But why in the world would she be using the name Rhonda M Perciavalle in 2012 (last paper in pubmed under than name in 2013) and Rhonda P Patrick in 2014 and 2015? Two different middle names for the same person (professional vs personal)? Seems highly unlikely. Suspect this is not the same person. JMWt (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A common convention when women take their husband's last name at marriage is to use the former last name as the middle name. So the "P" in "RP Patrick" probably stands for "Perciavalle". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I hadn't thought of that - although I think it is unusual for an academic to change names as they want to keep their publishing record under one name. According to the doctoral thesis, Rhonda Perciavalle was already married and she was already publishing under the name back to 1996. Anyway, even if the name change is explained by that, in total both names have 7 publications listed on pubmed (5 to Perciavalle and 2 to Patrick), which in itself is not particularly notable for an academic over 20 years. And the vast majority of the references on the page do not include either name as author. JMWt (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This reference has her as Rhonda Perciavalle Patrick, so that's confirmed (although maybe it is different elsewhere, but in the UK it would be unusual to call yourself Dr x when your doctorate was in another name). It also has her as a Post-Doctoral Scientist, which suggests she does not have a professorial position, adding to evidence of a lack of notability as per WP:NACADEMICS JMWt (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar also gives the name Rhonda Perciavalle Patrick, I only just noticed. More fool me. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable with ample coverage of academic position, published works and related media.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to hear how the subject is "obviously notable" as per the points in WP:NACADEMICS. To me, it is fairly obvious that there is no basis for any of the points suggested there. 11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)JMWt (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am offended, on so many levels, that this file is nominated not only for deletion but is tagged as a hoax. What part of WP:BEFORE was done here? If one doesn't even understand naming conventions of women, how can one assess a file for anything? First, a simple look at "scholar" shows she is publishing with Bruce Ames (BN Ames). Would he be assessed as a hoax? Would he likely be jointly publishing with someone who was? Clearly the sourcing on the files establishes notability. The Telegraph, "Patrick and Ames, both well-respected scientists in the field of autism"; the Boston Globe, "work by Ames and Patrick is significant". Are you questioning the reliability of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, etc.? Does this sound like the woman is a hoax? [1] - unsigned comment was by User:SusunW
Not my hoax tag, but I think it is understandable given that the vast majority of the references on the page are not in either of her names. I take your point though, and apologise for my confusion above.
That said, please indicate how the criteria in WP:ACADEMICS has been met. I agree she has some good newspaper write-ups, but she has a very small number of academic papers (point 1), which do not have massive numbers of citations (point 1), she does not seem to have been awarded an international prize (point 2), she does not hold membership of a highly-selective scholarly association (point 3), she does not seem to have anything to speak to point 4, she is not a professor (point 5), nothing to speak to point 6, is not the editor of a major academic journal (point 8).
Arguably the only way she could be considered to be notable would be related to point 7, and I'm not seeing that either. JMWt (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment: JMWt She completed her PhD in 2012, per documentation in the file and is clearly at the beginning of her academic career. She isn't required to meet academic. She is required to meet GNG, which she easily does. Multiple mentions, over time in reliable sources. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK well in that case we can remove all the text on the page which discusses her academic contribution. So ignoring that, how does she meet the WP:GNG. If the notability claim is related to her academic contribution, I cannot see how WP:NACADEMICS is not the policy to apply. JMWt (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt I've stated that already and am not inclined to argue with you (or anyone else for that matter). She meets GNG because she has been mentioned in reliable, independent sources, over time, with significant coverage. Your suggestion to remove the academic materials from her biography doesn't even make sense. Would you remove Heddy Lamar's scientific discoveries from her bio because she was predominantly an actress? Patrick is covered in the press because of her scientific contributions, which are academic in nature, but she does not have to meet any criteria other than GNG (for that matter, no article has to meet any criteria other than GNG). SusunW (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of this content is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's place as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia summarizes existing published work and is not a place for publishing original research or thought. I fail to identify the evidence that this article passes WP:GNG or that this person passes WP:ACADEMIC. I am looking for 2-3 sources which feature this person as their subject - someone please point only those 2-3 sources to me. I see 0 right now. Even if this article is kept almost all of it except 2-3 sentences is likely to need deletion for being WP:OR. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article references #3,4,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25 are all media sources that feature Dr Patrick and/or her scientific research as the subject, most of them in a very prominent way. Several are high circulation media, such as the Boston Globe and the Canadian Brodcasting Cooperation. Martinogk (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SusunW's edit has greatly improved content, cutting out promotional gibberish. It's still early days in Patrick's career, but it seems to me there is enough independent coverage to pass GNG, especially with the remarks made regarding respect/significance quoted by SusunW. So I lean toward keeping and improving rather than discarding.Alafarge (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am adding a note here that I was not previously aware of "userfication" but want to say that since many of the objections come down to WP:TOOSOON, I would advocate for userfication rather than deletion if the general trend leans away from keeping.Alafarge (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps as I certainly not sure why this was tagged as a "hoax" and the article seems notable and acceptable (certainly not a deletion priority at this time). Notifying DGG for some familiar insight. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 4 Reasons: (1) Fails WP:PROF, as the work is not yet highly cited; Even the first list 2014 paper has only 48 refs in Google Scholar. If it were truly breakthrough work, I would expect hundreds. If there are in the future, then there's evidence for an article. In fact, they are not the first people to publish the connection --the most cited paper is from an European group in 2006 [2] I note the argument: "shows she is publishing with Bruce Ames (BN Ames ". Bruce Ames, a very famous scientist, has published papers with many dozen students and postdocs. A few of them became notable. Most didn't. Since she is a postdoc in his laboratory, he would normally be considered the senior author for the publications from there. The same goes for her her graduate student work,only more so, and especially her undergraduate work. That she's a junior author at that stage is proof of her being a student, in training to be a researcher. There have been cases where one's postdoc or even graduate work does make one notable, but they are quite uncommon, to he extent that it wold count as an unusual BLP claim that requires unusually strong evidence. (2) fails WP:GNG because most of the references are either her publications or YouTube talks or unreliable sources for notability. (3) promotional and cannot be made unpromotional because there's insufficient nonpromotional content. The entire article is puffery, giving her credit for what cannot be shown to primarily belong to her. Perhaps it will be in the future, and then a proper article can be written about her science, not needing to fill it in with references to her non-notable YouTubing. (4) RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There is an unfortunate undercoverage of notable women scientists, and there are thousands of notable ones to include. We should fill this by starting from the most notable. To start from the extreme borderline and use the gender imbalance as a reason for inclusion is almost insulting to any proponent of an increased role for women in science,and I would include some of my colleagues here who argue also for delete as very much in that category. We should be long past the point of arguing for covering the non-notable because they are women. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) A 1995 article with 48 citations is a little over average, but an article published in 2014 with 48 citations is absolutely fantastic, and puts it in the top one tenth of a percent of all scientific papers. Scientists will kill for those numbers. I promise you, in a few more years that paper will have over 1000 citations. She publishes in top-notch scientific journals, and her other papers are also well cited, with 42 cites for a 2013 paper, 99 cites for a 2012 paper and 552 cites for a 2006 paper. (2) Of the 25 references, 4 are to her own scientific publications (not a complete list), 1 is to her own "self-promotional" web site, and the remaining 20 are from 17 independent media sources that is covering her and her research. These 17 include some of the top media organizations in the United States and Canada. (3) When a scientist is the first author of a paper, they can claim ownership of and major credit for the paper, even when a senior mentor is listed as the senior author. No academic promotions committee would argue otherwise. (4) I guess she is a young woman, but who cares. The quality and notability of her science is much more higher than the vast majority scientists, whether they are men or women and whether they are young or old. Martinogk (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criticism against YouTube talks fails to note that she was on The Joe Rogan show which was published on YouTube--I'm sorry, but Joe Rogan is influential and his podcast isn't just some crap on YouTube, so I'm not seeing the puffery. Listeners and viewers of Rogan are going to look for her and I'd like for people to find her on Wiki, which should be neutral. Also, one person's "promotional" is another person's "information." I think if we're going to argue about her contributions, we need a scientist to weigh in, because I'm not an expert in medicine. At worst, userfy if anyone thinks this is WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG is a reference librarian who specializes in science, which might actually be better than a scientist. You've got some skills that way, too, I believe. Can you find more sources about her (i.e., that would help write a biography, not sources that would be useful for an article such as Role of nutrition in autism)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a strange fellow to boot, sorry DGG. An extreme inclusionist on certain topics but has strict requirements for scholar articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, I'm not saying she doesn't skew towards the woo, because she seems to. I just think she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl yep, that's where I am. I don't have to agree with who they are, what they do or anything else. The criteria is what it is. She doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to have an article on Wikipedia. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to comment on this chain of thought, respecting that SusunW said he/she does not want to debate with me, so these are a response to the general thrust rather than specific comments. First, the newspaper articles mentioned above as meeting the standards for WP:GNG are about the research not the researcher that is the subject of the page. As a science journalist, I wrote many articles like this about new research - that's what happens when new research is published with fanfare by the journal or academic institution. Some academics who wrote the work I featured in the articles I wrote would be notable, a lot would not. The fact that I wrote about them is not in and of itself a sign that they're a notable scientist, that is why we have WP:NACADEMIC. If editors want to say that the newspaper articles in this page are an indication of notability, they are by definition talking about the academic research, and therefore they need to consider WP:NACADEMIC in my opinion.

Second, this researcher is simply not producing a lot of research in high profile academic journals. 7 academic papers in 20 years is not a lot. 20 papers in a year is a lot. Members of my family have more publications and media coverage, and I would not think they were even close to being notable enough to have a wikipedia page about them.

Third, the best that can be quoted from the Telegraph article is that the journalist said the page's subject was a "well-respected scientists in the field of autism". That is a single phrase and an opinion of the writer. Without further sources to back it up, it is just a phrase in a single article. Clearly none of these newspaper articles represent "significant independent coverage or recognition" as per the WP:GNG. Once again, without prizes, a professorship and other academic recognition, WP:NACADEMIC says they are not notable.

We then come to the youtube videos. The question is whether a video which has had 150,000 views is notable, and whether it can be considered to be part of "significant independent coverage or recognition". I don't think so. If that is the strongest evidence for keep, then that's still pretty weak, particularly given the failure to meet any of the standards of the notability for academics guideline. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the reasoning above. The notability of a scientists stems from the notability of the science, including the notability of Nobel prize laureates. If the notability of the science do not count towards the notability of a scientist, almost no scientist would be notable. The exception would be those like Carl Sagan that do public science education. It is the same for writers, who are notable because of the books they write, musicians who are notable for the music they write or play, and athletes who are notable for the sport they play, and in almost all cases, pretty much nothing else. People are notable because of what they do and what they say, and except for royalty and the like, no person is notable just because of the person they are. Martinogk (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • JMWt I am not unwilling to have reasoned discussion. The behavior you were engaged in previously was aggressive badgering, IMO. You challenged every statement anyone made. She does not have to be a high profile academic nor a highly cited scientist. She does not have to have done anything at all to meet WP criteria for inclusion. If she is in the media, if people are curious about who she is and what she does, we should have an article that is unbiased and contains NPOV about her theories giving the basic elements contained in those ideas. We have plenty of coverage of people with non-mainstream ideas and even no contributions to society covered in WP, lots of controversial figures as well. Media's opinion of the notability of anyone is an opinion and is caused by buzz, she is no different. You make a mistake when you assume that anyone here is claiming she is a notable scientist. She meets the basic criteria for inclusion in WP. That is all that is ever required. The guidelines state that everyone must meet GNG or other criteria. (my emphasis). SusunW (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way, and this is only one of many, many examples that could be cited. Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, with some skill according to his article, who had successes and failures, but was "launched to stardom" by the Binder surgery which was picked up by the media. On the other hand, Thomson Reuters publishes lists annually of the most influential and highly cited scientists in their fields. Elisabeth Gasteiger, Elizabeth A. Spencer, Ann S. Zweig and many, many others are on that list. They do not have articles because no media outlet writes about them. There are hundreds of articles about their work, none about them. Carson, has an article about him personally, not because of the overall value of his work, but because the media has continued to cover him, over time, in a variety of endeavors. WP is not, by definition of the criteria required, a reference of the most significant contributors, it is a reference of people that others want to know about because they have media coverage. SusunW (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me respond, please. I think the idea of comparing with Ben Carson is quite instructive. In the first paragraph of that page, it is clear that he is a retired neurosurgeon, but it is fairly clear further down the page that being a retired neurosurgeon is not what makes him notable, and as far as I can see he was not a particularly notable one. In contrast the first paragraph and further down the Rhonda Patrick page is the suggestion that her notability is related to her as a scientist. I agree that she might be considered to be notable outwith of her science, and according to the standard of WP:NACADEMIC she is not a notable academic scientist. She can indeed be a notable podcaster and resident at a medical research center, just as Ben Carson can be notable as a presidential candidate who happened to also have been a neurosurgeon. So which sources on the page suggest she is notable in her own right outwith of the publicity generated by her research?
I suggest only reference number 13 is specifically discussing her as a person not the research. And then the youtube videos and a blog.
The question is therefore whether reference 13 and 21-25 give enough to show that she is a notable as a public medic and podcaster. I don't believe these are a) lengthy biographies of her as a person as per WP:ANYBIO or b) independent, significant sources as per WP:RS.
Finally, I don't believe WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC are either/or. If the page, as the final section suggest, is about a person who is notable for her research, then she isn't notable. If the page is about a person who is notable as a podcaster and public academic, there is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Thanks for engaging. JMWt (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt We shall ultimately agree to disagree. GNG is unambiguous. If anyone meets the 3 criteria "it is presumed to be suitable" per ANYBIO "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria..." You call it how you see it, I read the words that are there.
I picked Carson for a reason but could just as easily have picked Paris Hilton, who is notable for ???. However, Carson's original bio was indeed based upon his career as a neurosurgeon. [3] From 2004 until 2009 it contained only information about his surgical career and religious works. 5 years, but "being a retired neurosurgeon is not what makes him notable"? (your emphasis) You see my point, there is a double standard, was he notable besides the publicity he was given? Was his article marked as a "hoax"? As to significant coverage, it has nothing to do with length. One can have a 200 or 20000 page tome on someone's exploits at college which carry no weight at all, but a single sentence which states that they are a Nobel Prize winner, president of a country, etc. has weight. Significance ≠ length. (In point of fact, wikiguides specifically state chaining evidence together to address lack of length is acceptable.) My original analysis that there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG stands. You don't agree. That is why there is debate. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ozzie10aaaa, how does the amount of edits the creator of the page has made affect this AfD discussion? There is currently an edit-a-thon taking place for Women in Science, so of course we have newbies on Wiki writing articles. Please make your case without resorting to ad hominem. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
your correct about the edit-a-thon(....however and whenever one sees few edits to an account direct at a specific article...one wonders).In any event I sincerely don't believe it is WP NOTABILITY [7] ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources such as the Boston Globe, Daily Telegraph, CBC, SF Chronicle, etc. discuss the subject's work in some depth. This is sufficient to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Aymatth2, Ipigott and SusunW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per --Ipigott , Megalibrarygirl, SusunW and Dr. Blofeld. As far as DGG is concerned: he may have been an inclusionist at some time, but now I see him nominating for deletion right and left. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)p;ease in me[reply]
  • Delete. I did not read the wall above, so maybe some of these arguments have been made already. Basically, Patrick is a junior academic with only a few independent publications that are not (yet) highly cited. (I would not count publications like the 2006 Science paper heavily, since that was several years before she earned her grad degree, so it's likely her role was very minor.) It seems the vitamin D story was a news blip for a time and almost all of the references are either a cull of the media community for this story or blogs and other web ephemera. This seems to be an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Even in the absence of WP:NACADEMIC (if that be the case), SusunW's argument for WP:GNG still stands. I believe Agricola44's referring to the Boston Globe story as a blip (it was a cover story in that issue) is a mischaracterization. Finally, per Megalibrarygirl, web shows often do capture a level of viewership that can be comparable to more traditional mediums like television...and looking only to YouTube count does not actually adequately capture audience reach if the show also happens to be popular on other platforms like iTunes, for example[1]. Snazzywiki (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boston Globe is a daily broadsheet – it has no "cover stories". I think you're confusing popularity with notability. The problem here is that there's no claim to notability yet (because the subject is entry-level), though it seems clear that there will be such in the future, and therefore the article is not yet encyclopedic. Agricola44 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Dr Patrick is a young but already accomplished and notable scientist, publishing highly cited papers in the top science journals. The number of citations has to be interpreted in terms of how old the paper is. 48 Google Scholar citations for a one year old article is extremely high, and 99 citations for a three year old article is also very good. Dr Patrick has already produced more important science than most scientists do over their whole career. This alone ensures her scientific notability. In addition, she has been featured in multiple independent media sources, including prominent newspapers such as the Boston Globe. As per SusunW, that in itself also ensures her notability, even if her research had been mediocre (not all science covered by the media is good science). In addition to the 17 independent media sources listed in the articles, a few simple Google searches generates many more in a variety of languages. Martinogk (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding number of citations has to be interpreted in terms of how old the paper is. 48 Google Scholar citations for a one year old article is extremely high: 48 citations is not notable – you're observation unintentionally supports my contention that this article is WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Elfman, Doug (31 December 2014). "Joe Rogan's three-hour podcast show tops 11 million monthly downloads". LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL. Retrieved 24 November 2015.
  2. ^ Jesse on Twitter: "Look who's in the Globe with more vitamin D knowledge bombs! Congrats Doc Patrick @foundmyfitness
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/Rhonda_Patrick&oldid=1076183303"