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.
Not notable, despite being recipient of university award, she is not a remarkable scientist Dimdamdocdim (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The references supplied in the article clearly indicate notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martijn Hoekstra and the fact that the article and referenced indicate signficant genetic work Travellingcari (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - remarkable & notable are different agendas -- Mitico (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Burroughs Wellcome is an impressive career-transition grant from postdoc to faculty, so it indicates something impressive. However, this is just a postdoc at this point, so it would need to be pretty impressive indeed. A CNN profile might suggest the requisite level of notability, but I can't really assess the impact of the contribution. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Delete I suggested bringing it here from prod, after i found she had 20 published papers, which is quite a lot for a post-doc. It turns out that the two most cited, both done during her undergraduate work at Harvard, are "Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome" by Author(s): Reich DE, Cargill M, Bolk S, Ireland J, Sabeti PC, Richter DJ, Lavery T, Kouyoumjian R, Farhadian SF, Ward R, Lander ES, in Nature (journal) 411 (6834): 199-204 May 10 2001, which has been cited 681 times by December, 2007, and "Detecting recent positive selection in the human genome from haplotype structure" Author(s): Sabeti PC, Reich DE, Higgins JM, Levine HZP, Richter DJ, Schaffner SF, Gabriel SB, Platko JV, Patterson NJ, McDonald GJ, Ackerman HC, Campbell SJ, Altshuler D, Cooper R, Kwiatkowski D, Ward R, Lander ES in Nature 419 (6909): 832-837 Oct 24 2002 cited 270 times. This sounds very impressive, but In both of these and in almost all of her subsequent work she is one of a large team. The true senior author (listed last as is typical in this subject), is Eric Lander at MIT, both as an undergraduate and postdoc. . She herself has not yet published any work not associated with him, or her research directors at Oxford or Harvard, and is therefore not yet independently notable. They presumably gave her a very strong recommendation, and she will probably become notable. I do not consider being the third woman receiving a summa from Harvard med as notability. Her rock band does not seem to have an article in WP. I discount the publicity. quite possibly driven by motives other than her science, as I would any tabloid reporting. Frankly, I do not know what The daily telegraph's list of geniuses has to do with her,as she is not included on it. anything involving other than tabloid notability. DGG (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes she is: "49= Pardis Sabeti (Iranian) Biological anthropologist 9" Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)-- missed her -- sorryDGG (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On one of those two papers, she's the first author, and Lander's the PI (last author), so it's her paper. That's a good publication record & influential paper for a postdoc, but it still seems a bit early. The real point is that she's still in Lander's lab, still a postdoc. So it seems to me that she's up-and-coming but not yet notable. --Lquilter (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has in fact just been appointed to a junior faculty position at Harvard. Despite this I say delete. Being junior faculty at Harvard does not make you notable. 18 publications by the age of 32 is not particularly unusual for a biologist. Most of those papers involve a minor contribution from Sabeti. She is lead author on only two and those are highly cited because they are topical. She works at the Broad Institute which is part of the HapMap consortium which has recently generated a large amount of genetic data. She has made one reasonable contribution to statistical genetics - the EHH method for detecting selection. Because she was at the Broad she was able to apply her method to the novel data and consequently her work got a lot of attention. Her method itself is not particularly original, people have been working on methods to detect selection for years they just havent had any data. She may become notable in future but she isn't now. She has won a good amount of research funding but so have many other junior faculty. Fiddletwotdoit (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very insightful, but a couple of points. 18 publications by postdoc is quite a strong publication record, especially with lead author on a Nature paper. I don't disagree with the assessment of the EHH method -- your comments here seem sensible -- but there is also the matter of the mainstream media press. --Lquilter (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I generally follow DGG's lead on judging scientists, but in this case she clearly has WP:N compliance in terms of media attention and plaudits. If we were only judging her on papers alone I would consider DGG's (and Fiddletwotdoit's) factors more heavily. But she has real-world notability beyond her niche. Meeting WP:BIO isn't the same thing as giving her a Nobel Prize, and we're not -- just an article for a young and unusually notable scientist. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to echo that. I am mildly surprised that I completely disagree with DGG on any AfD, as his opinions are most often rock solid, make me think again, and sometimes make me reconsider. But with the independent press coverage, I really can't do anything but confirm notability here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Predominantly influenced by first author on a heavily cited Nature paper, plus the inclusion in the list in The Telegraph. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media attention is irrelevant when discussing academic notability. Media coverage of science is very often driven by ulterior motives than acknowledging scientific achievement and is frequently nothing more than personality ego stroking. It is typical of the media to pick individuals with particularly quirky attributes which nonetheless have no bearing on notability: e.g. the fact that Pardis is female in a field dominated by males or the fact she is in a rock-band (!?). Obviously being the third woman to pass her medicine degree with summa caume laude at Harvard is hardly exceptional and is no claim to scientific notability. The truth is that her scientific achievement barely stretches beyond her EHH method, and the rest of her contributions are merely a consequence of the Broad's privileged position in terms of access to data.Basildon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're correct there. The general notability guidelines per WP:N are what count. The main guidline is about independent reliable sources, with significant coverage. Sabeti has had significant coverage in the CNN article. WP:PROF are additional guidelines to make it easier to determine notability, which don't really matter anymore once the general guidelines are satisfied. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though she may not be notable per WP:PROF or for her scientific achievements, she may be notable in sum total -- for her other media appearances, however earned. To take it to extremes, a scientist who won a major academy or grammy or tony award would likely be notable, even if not for WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say "the main guidline is about independent reliable sources, with significant coverage" and mention CNN as an example. I hardly find CNN a reliable source, but - regardless - it's not a "news" article, reliability doesn't come into it - it's a blatant and shameless piece of public relations, just like this Wikipedia article. I cautiously add that the >=3 edits from Massachusetts IP addresses are hardly a surprise. Basildon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From WP:SOURCES "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Regardless of personal opinion on CNN, I believe CNN meets that criteria quite well. Of course mistakes happen, the NY TImes even had a scandal a few years ago, but in general they're reliable sources. No comment on the other aspects as I've already cast my "vote" Travellingcari (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CNN would qualify as what is typically understood as a reliable source. The "genius" article is fluffy, sure, but I'm not sure why you allege that it's "public relations". PR-generated articles are usually on one topic. I don't see how a single press-release would have created this article. That said, there's no question that coverage in mainstream media of scientists is usually fluffy, and may frequently be driven by university PR offices, as you suggest. But if the editorial processes at mainstream media outlets deem something to be publishable, then that is how we determine if it is "notable" for wikipedia purposes. --Lquilter (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on a prestigious grant (Burroughs-Wellcome), a minor award (the Spectrum Trailblazers Award), mainstream media coverage (CNN & Telegraph), and a heavily cited first-author Nature paper. This is marginal "notability" for a scientist (the awards & Nature paper) per WP:PROF, and if it were just for that I would go with DGG's take on the matter. The mainstream media coverage, and the Spectrum Trailblazers Award, tip it into "keep" for me. --Lquilter (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lina, I almost never disagree with you, but how is a grant to a postdoc for transition to a faculty position a prestigious grant? If we start that, what about grants to PhD's to go on to a postdoc, and so on down the line.
And I dont see how an award you consider "minor" makes you think her notable?
The actual standard for scientific notability requires at the least being notable for some independent work of one's own, not being given first authorship on a paper on your advisor's project. She has become involved with notable projects led by more distinguished people. That's a very good way to start a career, but it isnt notability. In the rare cases where we've accepted notability for a postdoc, I think it's been because of a notable independent project. But I haven't kept track of them.
But more important, the main question is the relationship of N=2RS to any actual consideration of any regarding encyclopedic suitability. We have normally not accepted that being hailed as anything by a tabloid gives notability, and have consistently held that coverage, no matter how inflated, of non-notable events does not give notability. I'm not at all sure we do this consistently, or that we should be doing it at all. But since it is the custom here, it would be a major change to eliminate or restrict the basic criterion in the guideline for WP:N. What however is the relationship between the basic guideline and the supplementary guidelines? Is meeting either enough? or does it take both? Or does it have to meet the basic and the supplement is just a guide to it? If we really literally mean the basic, then it is incompatible with WP:NOT NEWS and an number of other policies. Given the uncertanity of this, and that the resolution will take a discussion far beyond this article, I'm changing to Weak Delete, meaning I don't think anyone is the least bit in the wrong who thinks otherwise, and that it's a matter of opinion only. DGG (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, DGG (it's laura not lina, btw). If I did "weak" & "strong" I would probably go with "weak keep", because i am really teetering on the fence here. I wish I knew how two "genius" articles got published in two different sources. They're fairly different articles, although both are "puffy". Anyway, on the specifics, and none of these are strong defenses -- they're all on the fence. (1) The career transition grant from BW is a major grant for a beginning faculty; I think it provides a lot of startup funding for a lab. It's not just for postdoc support, so I think it goes beyond postdoc grants. It's a judgment call though and there are no fixed standards yet. (2) On your point about the interfaces of the notability guideline & the subguidelines, I just don't know, but it seems, to me, that either should be okay. I think the "news" problem will have to get resolved over time -- it shows up a lot in the criminal defendant cases. (3) I think the sum of my comments could be considered a "benefit of the doubt" standard. Given some evidence of notability in several different areas, but not a lot of notability in any one area, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to keep content. --Lquilter (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, declaration of interest: I am acquainted with the article subject. (She's awesome.) That being said, on purely academic grounds she shouldn't be in here. (She will meet the requirements soon, I expect, but not yet.) As a non-scientist I have a healthy scepticism about the number of papers it takes in scientific fields to be noticed, and 20 including conference reports is not that many. The Nature one is marginally notable, but when she publishes a couple of others, and is mentioned as actually having made some sort of breakthrough, then we can revisit it. We now come to the Daily Telegraph article, which I find interesting, yet it suffers from the fatal flaw of not really covering her as such. I really am not sure why so many have suggested keeping it. Relata refero (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in Pardis_Sabeti#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. John254 00:40, 3 February 2008 (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.