Talk:Belinda Ferrari

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia

	Australia portal Belinda Ferrari is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... I am new to creating pages and slowly creating this page- I have not had a chance to reference and complete the person's importance yet. --Kazoo1975 (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to avoid speedy deletions is to make articles in your sandbox before making them in article space.--Savonneux (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for Kazoo1975's sake, that isn't to say that you aren't encouraged to complete the article here (even if completing a draft that clearly asserted notability prior to publication would have been ideal). And welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! Graham (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on Kazoo1975's talk page, I believe the subject might well meet WP:PROF based on the impact of her research, but it would be good to get references independent of the institutions where she works to underline her impact. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple RS interested in recent research

I think we should link to and cite multiple RS talking about the research. Multiple RS are multiple RS, whether or not their common source might have been someone's press release. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at our article Astrobiology, many past researchers claim that water is a requirement for life on other planets. But research led by Ferrari describes Antarctica microbes that do not depend on water and/or sunlight[1]: "What Ferrari and her team ...found through genetic clues about the metabolisms of the microbes, including the two newly discovered phyla, that they produce energy directly from atmospheric hydrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide." IMO this is major. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science churnalism

So a press release was put out about the microbes in antartica - it is here. There were lots of churnalism pieces published hyping this, based on the press release. There is little to no additional information in these, and including bunches of them doesn't help the reader; nor does it contribute to notability (which is not a concern anyway, and never was, as the AfD was SNOW). If there is a lack of clarity about this, see footnote 3 in the N guideline. There is also no need for the promotional quotes - the sources are freely available and there is no, and never was, a serious concern about notability. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have no connection to this bio subject, being an elderly cranky engineer who watches for AfDs that sound a bit notable. But in general I like to include quotes from article sources if they add interest or context to the article. None of what I added is "crappy promotional content" (to quote your edit summary) so I ask you to WP:AGF and seek consensus. I do not see the benefit to our readers of your removing information, including an interesting article from NASA. Your dislike of "churnalism" does not exclude our using quotes that do not come from the press release you cite. I believe the article was better before your massive deletions, but what do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask and don't suspect that you do have a connection. The "massive" removals were just trimming two of the four churnalism refs and the quotes. And removing clutter like sources from the lead. Per WP:LEAD sources aren't needed unless something is controversial.

Quotes can be useful for paywalled things or for foreign language sources. Otherwise they are pretty much just clutter and the quotes used here were unambiguously promotional for her or the research. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]