Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen C. Frederico

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Stephen C. Frederico}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Stephen C. Frederico}})

An early career researcher who doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Has some research output through their early training; good for their career stage, but with H-factor of [https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57224185836 6] is a long way from demonstrating impact. Contested PROD, which is why I've now brought it here. Klbrain (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for raising this issue @Klbrain - I'd like to counter that while this early career researcher may not meet WP:NACADEMIC they certainly meet WP:BIO criteria as they have several secondary sources (Fox News, Post and Courier, The College Today, PittWire) that are independent secondary sources that are reliable, describing their scientific contributions. An additional note is that there are other researchers with similar h-indexes with wikipedia pages. Baseballandbrews (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The news coverage was about [https://foldsofhonor.org/ Folds of Honor], with Frederico being used as an example of a studentship recipient; so, not the primary topic, so insufficient for establishing notability. However, I'll let other express their views. Klbrain (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: A working researcher, not notable. Student of the year and a Daily Point of light award are not notable, the rest are about receiving fellowships, which aren't awards, more like scholarships. I don't see that this person warrants an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Article has credible sources, verifiable and seems like the person's online notability has already been acquired. Pages with even less notable sources are often found on wikipedia, not justifying but I think this page meets the criteria to stay online. Canekangaroo (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Please nominate those pages that do not meet notability, that's the point of AfD. This person has online sources, yes, but he's not much different than any other person in a similar situation. Simply holding a job and publishing things does not get you an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Would argue that your point regarding fellowships is incorrect entirely. After reviewing the fellowships for the American Brain Tumor Association and the American Society for Clinical Investigation it appears those fellowships were indeed early career grant awards that were awarded due to an early career investigator having a highly competitive project (grant) application. Not scholarships (funds used to pay for tuition).
• :Additionally the Daily Point of Light Award was created by a sitting U.S. president (George Bush Sr) and is administered through his foundation. If we are using the standard that only nobel prizes and/or election to the national academy of medicine makes a researcher worthy of a bio, a lot of articles need to be deleted from this platform.
• :Would have to argue the researcher has done a lot more than simply holding a job and publishing things as they have received a significant amount of press for their work in independent sources secondary sources that are reliable, and received multiple notable awards for their work. Baseballandbrews (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::"Frederico is using his fellowship, which comes with a $50,000 prize, to support a year of funded brain tumor research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston." It's a funding grant for a year, that is not notable, that's how research gets done. No funding, no research. I doubt very much Federico would do this for free. Again, a "Daily Point of Light" award is a trivial win. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::You originally characterized the award as a scholarship - which based on your new comment appears not to be the case. The award is an early career investigator award, requiring an application process, etc.
• :::Additionally, there are many notable early career grants that award funds in the amount of $50,000, not just this one, I would encourage you to look at NIH grants (R03), American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Young Investigator Award, etc. I don't think anyone would argue these aren't notable. American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI) is right up there and is a highly respected org within the sciences. I think we can both agree that "notability" is highly subjective and based on a personal interpretation - if you're saying early career awards/$50,000 is not notable, and awards from presidential foundations are not notable, then what is? Baseballandbrews (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So he's still too early in his career, with nothing published that makes him different from any other early career researcher. And no, we have strict standards for notability here, this person is an academic, so we're looking at academic notability. He's not there yet. Giving a researcher money isn't notable, that's how science gets done these days. We need to see a notable contribution to their field of study, not simply doing research. You've not shown that this individual meets anything we'd consider notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The Daily Point of Light is for volunteer work, you're claiming this person is an academic. One isn't supporting the other, they're either notable for their volunteer work or for being an academic. There have been around 7000 winners in the last 35 years, that's not terribly notable alone. It's nice to honor volunteer work, but that alone isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:WP:NACADEMIC is one route to notability, but I think wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) is another important factor to consider. If multiple independent sources discuss the subject's work in depth, they meet general notability, which is sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion, even if WP:NACADEMIC isn’t fully met. The article has added reliable and independent sources that demonstrate significant coverage beyond routine citations. Given this, the article should not be deleted. JohnGaming (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for explaining in detail. But notability is not solely based on citation metrics like the H-index. WP:NACADEMIC discusses multiple criteria for establishing notability, for example awards, influential collaborations or substantial independent coverage. Point is that the subject’s contributions extend beyond just research output and have been recognized in independent sources. Deleting the article would overlook a broader impact that aligns with Wikipedia’s notability and other standards, no? Sujon004 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::No, it would be keeping in line with Wikipedia's standards of notability and being a reliable source of information, not a dumping ground for anything and everything that we can possibly host. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per Oaktree b. Additionally, this article was published in the mainspace directly instead of submitting for review by a self-admitted WP:PAID editor without a proper declaration and those are both serious violations of Wikipedia policy and should probably be reported to WP:COIN. Between that and the de-prod by an SPA this whole thing reeks of promo/paid editing. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service and saying that there are other articles that are similar is a completely invalid article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The paid editors get very concerned and tend to bombard the comment sections in AfD, as we're seeing here. This is another red flag; generally speaking, if the person was notable, it wouldn't need to be debated and should be self-evident. Every time we present evidence to the contrary, there is another barrage of comments from the same two or three editors. We see this over and over in AfD, this case seems to be no different. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable in the old way as in time to go. scope_creep^Talk 21:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete The majority of his articles are all published in the "frontiers in ..." journals, such as Frontiers in Oncology. Frontiers publishes 229 different "frontiers in ..." journals. I looked up the listed editors on some of the journals and none of them have the editorship in their work bio; some do not appear to do research in the area of the journal they are listed as editing. So I'm not seeing prestige in the journal he mainly publishes in. He has a total of ~100 citations. Lamona (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.