Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Law

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Law

edit
Brandon Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

17-year-old who's done well in science fair competitions. All the sources refer to his placing in these competitions. I don't think this makes him a notable "scientist". NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This discussion may include the use of sockpuppetry by users Pdfreeman, ambcfoundation, Bpaftw, and Pbstrypsin. A formal on going investigation is in place at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pdfreeman.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, science fair winner does not equal notable scientist ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Although what he has achieved in his 17 years is notable, it doesn't seem Wiki-worthy yet. Raymondwinn (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles of child academics such as Philip Vidal Streich and Sho Yano are acceptable, by precedent this article should not be deleted as well. The article is fine, because no where does it indicate that he is a notable scientist. Thus, the two above arguments are making a faulty comparison. Law should not be compared to other scientists but rather other 17 year olds. As an adult his contribution is substantial, but as a 17 year old it's wiki-notable, especially at a time when America's youth is slipping in science and math. ambcfoundation (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In agreement with Ukexpat. Had a 34 year old performed these studies, he wouldn't even hit the papers. This is mere sensationalism because he's 17 years old, but so are the other 50 students who are listed in each source, so either this gets deleted or we get cracking on another 49 articles. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I would respectfully disagree with DRosenbach. Saying other students are in the sources is equivalent to saying Lance Armstrong shouldn't be in wikipedia because hundreds of people compete in the Tour de France. Although other students are listed in some of the sources, the sheer quantity of accolades he has received makes him a unique, notable individual. The average high schooler certainly doesn't have over 13 news sources and a news segment devoted to himself (especially a widely circulated paper like the Star Tribune) . Plus, the news segment says he's doing graduate/post-doctoral work on developing a brain cancer vaccine. Yes, maybe it won't make front page news, but not every article on wikipedia has to be earth shattering news. A cancer vaccine, not matter how old the scientist is, is certainly an interesting development. YPdfreeman (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. He fails WP:PROF -- "as good as a senior graduate student" is not quite "more notable than the average professor", but he's marginally notable as a young celebrity prodigy type; under the general criterion in WP:BIO. He's got one full profile by a news channel, and numerous incidental writeups. RayAYang (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who? MiracleMat (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A damn smart 17-year-old, to be certain. The article could use better references, but his accomplishments are notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Although impressive achievements for such a young man, he has yet to accomplish anything of longterm note by himself. The projects he has/is working on are mostly led by adult senior scientists, and although he is participating in a meaningful research he certainly isn't directing the course of the scientific studies. I think this article is a bit premature since the subject's notability seems to be too closely tied to his age. If Law doesn't do anything truly noteworthy in future than this article really is worthless as notability of Law may dissapear. Therefore this article really isn't a valid encyclopedic entry as notability is not temporary.Nrswanson (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nrswanson. If ever the article would be kept, it would need extensive cutting and re-writing so that it resembles a bit less a breathless fan-report and becomes more encyclopedic. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Nrswanson sums it up. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Challenging the Pasteur effect in favor of the Warburg effect is a notable accomplishment. Even if he wasn't a scientist, the fact that Law created a large nonprofit organization is enougth merit for a wiki article. Pbstrypsin (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Pbstrypsin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note The article on the Pasteur effect talks about the "inhibiting effect of oxygen on the fermentation process", which apparently has nothing to do with tumors. The Warburg effect was discovered in the 50's in tumor cells. That article cites some recent discoveries on this effect. None of this mentions the Pasteur effect or the Warburg effect. It really does not look to me like Law has discovered the cure for cancer, unfortunately, unless something escapes me here. As for the nonprofit, if that organisation is notable, Law could be mentioned in an article about that nonprofit, that still does not establish notability for a separate article. --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I think two technical points need to made. Firstly, fermentation not only occurs in yeast cells, but it also occurs in tumor cells. Just read the scientific journal article by Warburg himself, <http://www.jgp.org/cgi/reprint/8/6/519>. Law's paper is arguing oxygen does not inhibit the fermentation process of glioma tumors (in other words his conclusion is contradicting "the Pasteur effect"). Although, the Warburg effect was documented in tumors in the 50's, scientists did not know gliomas exhibited the Warburg effect. Otto Warburg was working with sarcomas and carcinomas not gliomas (refer the the journal article for verification). Secondly, even though Law's abstract doesn't mention the Warburg and Pasteur effect by name, his conclusion is consistent with Wikipedia's description. Fermentation takes place through an anaerobic process called glycolysis. The fact that oxygen does not inhibit fermentation (and therefore glycolysis) means that gliomas have a "glycolytic-dependent phenotype" (notice that phrase is in the title of his paper). This contribution is noteworthy; he doesn't have to find the cure to cancer to be notable. The fact that we are debating the scientific merits of a kid's paper is a testament to his notable contribution to the scientific dialogue. Pdfreeman (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Thanks for that explanation Pdfreeman! However, as far as I can see, nobody ever claimed that the Pasteur effect occurred in glioma cells? So why is it such a big deal that somebody comes up with a hypothesis that it indeed doesn't occur? And if this indeed is such an important discovery, why has this only been published as a science fair abstract and not in a scientific journal? --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. To answer Nrswanson, there are two levels of argument to keep this article. First, even if we disregarded age, “challenging the general assumption that glioma cells exhibit the Pasteur effect” is a wiki-worthy accomplishment in itself. Such a finding is not temporary, but rather a newly established theory in scientific debate. Even if Law decided not to pursue science later in life, his discovery will still remain (scientific theories don’t expire over time). Second, if we acknowledge his age, an article about a “child prodigy/extremely gifted teen” with a substantial amount of publicity would suffice in keeping this article. Science fair rules require students to construct their own original research plan, so he must’ve directed his own study. Bpaftw (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Bpaftw appears to have only made three edits in the Wikipedia namespace, and five total. The current version (as I type this) of his very impressive user page[1] appears to be a clone of that of another, well-established user[2]. Jll (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment The same is also true of two other advocates of keeping the article who have made few other edits outside of it. Pbstrypsin's user page [3] looks identical to Art LaPella's page[4]. And Pdfreeman, who apparently spends a lot of time editing the Royal Military College of Canada article according to her user page[5] (but not her edit history), has a user page similar to a recent version of a user called Victoriaedwards[6] who does put a lot of work into that. Now these discrepencies shouldn't really matter, but they make me a little uncomfortable because if Pbstrypsin says he is Art LaPella and isn't then how can I trust those assertions of his which are relevent to this discussion, for example that Brandon's discovery is a notable one. Note I have linked to the historic versions of these pages as I see them now. I hope this is some almighty cock-up in my computer, or perhaps wikipedia's database, and I can make a grovelling apology for taking these advocates' names in vain, but that isn't how it looks to me at the moment. Jll (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
????? I just had a look at Pbstrypsin's user page and it is as Jll says, it's identical to that of Art LaPella's. But here is something even stranger: Pbstrypsin created a talk page with several messages from other users on it, but apparently there's only one single edit to this talk page: his own. The same thing happens with Bpaftw, who crated a talk page containing already a message purportedly from 2005. Now I know that I have to assume good faith, but this looks to me like there is one person trying to create different "personalities" that look legit. Note that none of the people whose userpages were copied ever edited anything related to this AfD. Sorry, despite AGF, I have to say that this looks very fishy to me. Jll, are you a detective in real life or something?? :-)) --Crusio (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this does seem fishy. Perhaps we should bring this up at a suspected sockpuppet review?Nrswanson (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I don't reallly know how to (and in addition it is getting late over here, so I need to get some sleep...) --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and filed a report. See note above.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am not a detective, but I was carefully reading this discussion to help me form a view. I was curious that someone had been awarded nine barnstars for a handful of edits. Jll (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are jumping the gun on calling his work a theory. At this point it is only a published study (and not even that really as Crusio has pointed out). In order for it to become a theory, numerous other studies will have to be done by other scientists to validate the research and its findings. At this point the study hasn't been sufficiently substantiated to know if it will survive the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community. That process takes years. Therefore, it is impossible to say whether or not Law's study will have a lasting impact or not as of right now. Notability based on the research is therefore really not established yet. Also, theories do go away as science improves itself and new discoveries are made. (It doesn't happen too often but it does happen) Only scientific laws are so well established. Furthermore, he clearly fails the guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which is the standard set for scientist articles on wikipedia. Therefore, the only thing making him notable is his age (which is temporary) and possibly the non-profit he started. The non-profit, however, has yet to achieve anything that would pass notability for an organization on wikipedia so I think that fails too. No notabiliy can be established. Nrswanson (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Concerning the notability of the non-profit, it has a sleek, professional-looking website. However, the events listed are all events organized by others. The fundraising page lists as total raised so far: $ 0.00..... Not a notable feat, to say the least. --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability (and independent verification) of effect in tumour cells dubious. Non-profit organisation appears to be non-notable. As for "child prodigy/extremely gifted teen" — he's done well in science fairs just like many other people. If he were, say, 5, and competing against 17 year olds then this argument would be more convincing. Jll (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me add that if one takes some time to browse through the references given in the article, that it turns out that Law did not win any of those Intel International Science and Engineering Fairs, at best he shared third place in just one category (and look how many categories there are, how many people share first, second or third place). These competitions are held yearly, there must be hundreds of teens that did at least as well as Law in these. The same goes for "Minnesota Scholars of Distinction in Science", according to the source given, he is one of three such scholars in his own school alone. For someone who developed a "cancer vaccine (per Pdfreeman above), that is a bit meager. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 11 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brandon_Law&oldid=1137645334"