Talk:Belinda Ferrari

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)