Talk:Eugene Koonin

Untitled

From VfD:

Seems to be a copypasted cv only. Notable? --Bibble 15:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Before I register a vote, I have a question. I can't seem to find a definition of "notable", thought I'm sure I saw one once. My suspicion is that, if you asked 10 molecular biologists about him, 7 would know of him. In other words, in his own field he's likely to be moderately well known. The world at large, of course, doesn't know any molecular biologists at all, unless they happen to win the Nobel prize or something. - Kenwarren 21:15, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Having Googled myself, he's got to be notable among his peers. Keep. - Kenwarren 03:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Useful biographical sketch. I have never heard of him. I don't feel particularly enlightened now that I have, but that does not make the entry irrelevent or unotable. I agree with the view expressed by Kenwarren (although he has not yet decided on his vote) that he may not be of note to you or I, but may be of interest to those in his field. I vote to keep . Arevich 21:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I've been wondering this myself (about notability). A quick googling reveals Mr. Koonin seems to be a big cheese in the world of genomes, of which I know little, but my gut instinct is that he is notable (btw keep, encylopidify). Here the qualification for being notable is something along the lines of scientific achievement and recognition thereof by his peers. Can't think of a good catch-all definition though. Ianb 21:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• If not copyvio, give cleanup a shot. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Tentative keep. If cleanup is a failure because there isn't any other real information on him out there, it can be relisted. Postdlf 13:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, he seems notable enough. I tried to do a little cleanup, I'd suggest listing the page for further cleanup. I don't think something like this can be a copyviolation in any meaningful way. Possibly it originated as a cut and paste job, but I can't conceive of anyone raising a reasonable objection to the inclusion of this information here, particularly if it is modified to match encyclopedic style. --Woggly 07:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Elf-friend 18:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Addition of selected bibliography

@Amkilpatrick: What is the reason for your reversion? Invasive Spices (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Invasive Spices:, I can't find the exact MOS entry I was looking for, but I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE summarises it: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". ie, what context do these articles provide about Koonin/his work? Can that context/those refs be integrated with the existing text rather than a standalone section with a list of two?

FWIW, some editors may still have a problem if that context is provided since the articles were coauthored by Koonin and therefore not independent (personally I tend to think that in the case of academics, peer reviewed articles are a step above eg blogs etc, but not everybody shares this view). Amkilpatrick (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Amkilpatrick: This is a Selected bibliography which is common (WP:WORKS). These are not sources. As Annual Reviews (publisher) explains these are likely to be among his most influential works of his entire career. I expect the list should be expanded with some of his top stuff like http://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3569 but these were the two I thought of. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, although I still think this would be better integrated into the text rather than a list, eg "Annual Reviews picked articles A & B as some of the most influential, etc etc". Just my opinion, of course. Amkilpatrick (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it was OK to include a few selected important reviews in Nature and "Annual Reviews", although he published so much this is difficult to select. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)