Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McGinness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 no consensus. The lack of participation makes this more of a case of editors thinking "too long; didn't read" than being actually representative of an issue with equal merits one way or the other. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John McGinness

This is a vanity article by Peter Proctor aka Pproctor (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), not about himself but about his colleague. All the references are to his own website, where you can buy hair loss shampoo for $109.95. The article claims no real notability; he has held no positions, been elected to scientific societies, won awards, and so on. I strongly suspect that the inbound links were also added by Pproctor (talk • contribs) who has been promiting himself incessently particularly by adding spam to Baldness treatments [1] and his cranky self-admitting whine that he was not awarded a Nobel Prize to the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies page. This users arrogance and contempt for Wikipedia policies is evident on his talk page where he insists that he is superior to everyone else because he has a Phd (apparently without consideration that others might too). — Dunc|☺ 15:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Should have known better. Anyway, Ducharis and I clashed over on Raymond Damadian and I made the error of revealing my true ID. Bad mistake, as events proved. Ever since he has been vandalizing pretty much everything I have posted on wiki that he can find. Erasiers, reversions, the whole bit. No good reasons and of stuff that nobody else has objected to. This last one just tears it. BTW, Ducharris in his rant missed the fact that I also am an MD, FWIW. Apparently others have had difficulty with Duch's erratic behavior. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture.
Anyway, it is difficult to see how a bio of a researcher I published a few papers with three decades ago is a "vanity article". The article is cited and linked ad nauseum. John McGinness PhD, MD is a major figure in organic electronics and arguably produced the first nanotech device. As if we need more endorsement-- This device is now in the Smithsonian instutions "Smithsonian chips" collection of early electronic devices. John's role in this field is generally acknowledged, e.g., in "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003). All completely in accord with the rules. Pproctor 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll confirm that the Ann NY Acad Sci article referenced above refers to McGinness, for those who don't have access, although it only references the McGinness, Corry, and Proctor paper (reference 2 in the McGinness article). It's not clear to me that this researcher passes WP:PROF. No vote. bikeable (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ann NY Acad Sci article on the history of Organic electronics says: "Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added)... This advance was made by McGinness,...." Pproctor 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PROF Criteria If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on verifiability.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.
The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.
The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.
The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
  • Delete Non-notable and does not pass WP:PROF. One of the 56 websites I found referrencing "'John McGinness' + Organic" (of which, only a few actually are about this individual) basically reads as if he is really bitter about not winning a Nobel Prize. Get over it. Many great discoveries do not get a nobel prize. will381796 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The Nobel business is a straw argument. If being angry because you didn't win a Nobel (actually he never promoted himself or his work, which is the problem) is a good reason, lets delete the Raymond Damadian and Herman Carr entries, to name just a couple that come to mind. The only issue at hand is whether John did what the record clearly indicates. Pproctor 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
AfD is not properly a vote, but in any case, please do not vote multiple times -- it gives the appearance of ballot stuffing. thanks. bikeable (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am by no means qualified to make any type of determination as to whether his work is of Nobel quality or not. However, being nominated for a Nobel Prize is enough to be considered notable. Let me rephrase the above statement in that he is angry that he was not nominated for a Nobel. Every research scientists loves their work and feels that it is very important; otherwise, why do it? But the wonderful thing about science is the entire peer-review process. He could think his research is wonderful, etc. But that doesn't matter. We need to see multiple, verifiable sources say that this individual is a "Pioneer" in organic electronics. Most textbooks give a history of those scientists that played an important role in their field. A google book search shows zero quotes for "'John McGinness' + organics." If he was truly a pioneer, then he would certainly be more notable and discussed a great deal more. will381796 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

First, after the 2000 Nobel business, John was nominated for a Nobel. By pioneering Melanin researcher Roberto Nicolaus, Head of the Accademia Pontanian in Naples. If memory serves, he is ex-officio a Noble nominator.

Second, John is like Herman Carr and figures making a fuss about "discovery credit" is, well, tacky. But even Carr finally came foreward, not to complain about the Nobel, but about getting deprived of credit for his discovery. I'm the pushy culprit here-- for years, I watched others take credit for stuff he had originally done and bugged him to step foreward, at least a little. When people he had a patent issue with won the 2000 Noble, I finally took matters in hand. Similarly, the issue is not the Nobel, but discovery credit. How would you like to discover something really important and then see somebody else grab credit for it?

Second, Hush in his PNYAS history of molecular electronics specifies it well. John was too early. BTW, this is not unknown--Gregor Mendel's work in classical genetics took 30 years to be recognized and Peyton Raus' 1910 discovery of a cancer virus in chickens waited even longer. This does not mean their discoveries were unimportant, Just too early.

Another major problem was Shirakawa et al, who came along three years later, rediscovered the high conductivity potential of the oxidized polyacetylenes and then proceeded to produce over 400 papers and patents with out a single reference to John's work. Under such circumstances, how could anybody coming later have known there was something prior to them? Also see Dulbecco's law. BTW, when I asked one of the Nobel winners about this situation and noted that we had sent them several letters, his dismissive reply was "Well, there's always history". Right about that.

The real problem was not missing a Nobel. As I keep being correctly reminded, that is just a matter of luck. The real issue was being completely stripped of any credit at all for an important discovery. Who gets the Nobel is a subjective judgement. However, here the 2000 Nobel citation is obviously factually incorrect. When I asked for a slight correction, noting our "prior art", I got the usual stony silence. The reputation for infallibility of the Nobel is more important to them than the true history of discovery.

More recently, my efforts have made people aware of this earlier work. Which is why you are now starting to see it referenced. BTW, if you want to see the references to Johns work, use "melanin" as a key word. The pigment cell people always knew about John. Same with people who work with the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, or bleomycin. Use those as keywords. Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Question: McGinness JE would be considered notable under the proposed guidelines due to his publications if they are cited in other publications. Pproctor, do you have any examples of other papers that have cited any of his McGinness' publications? I fail to find any on PubMed, but that might not be surprising given the date of publication of some of the papers. will381796 23:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The paper in Science linked in this article, when you access it it on the Science website has at the end "This article has been cited by other articles" and goes on to list 3 articles from the past 5 years (of course, the Science website provides only a partial citation index). Robotforaday 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
At the time of publications, the paper was also the subject of a Nature News and Views article. Here. There is also Nobel Physics prize winner Nevill Mott'sletter to John. It should be obvious that the work was pretty well-known at the time. But it disappeared from view when Shirakawa et al came on the scene. How they missed several prior key papers in Science and Nature I do not understand.

Use "melanin", adriamycin, cisplatinum (cisplatin) and bleomycin as keywords. Also see my comment above. Again, see Dulbecco's law-- Citations do not always correlate with priority of discovery. Which is what John unquestionably has.Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Pubmed cites 96 articles related to Dr Mcginness' 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device.
  • Pubmed cites 101 references related to Dr Mcginness' paper "Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin", cite below.

Could give similar examples, ad nauseum.

  • Given the above information and the fact that his publications are cited by others in his field, I change my opinion to keep.
  • Keep. Not many papers, but Science, Nature & Lancet are all high profile, and the quotation from the recent review by Hush seems to assert the notability of the discovery. I'm puzzled as to why he's flitted between subjects that to me seem dissimilar, but perhaps an expanded article could address this. Espresso Addict 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There are plenty other papers--40-50 plus, or so IIRC.. E.g., John and Retsuke Kono found that Melanin is by far the best sound-absorbing material known. (Kono, R. and McGinness, J.E.: "Anomalous Absorption and Sound in DBA Melanins". J. Applied Physics, 50(3): 1236-1244, 1979.}. This discovery alone ought to justify inclusion. I'll fill in the blanks if we get thru this silly deletion petition, which is part of an attack a cyberstalker is directing at me, not John.
    • As for the history of the device-- John was working in the Physics Department of The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (which is where I got my PhD). The department had an interest in the physical properties of Melanin as a possible hook to treating melanoma. At the time nobody but cancer researchers had any reason to look at the electronic properties of the polyacetylene blacks. Otherwise, it was a complete backwater. So, they hired John, a "real' solid state physicist. Which is why, by a delicious irony, the generally-acknowledged first molecular electronic device came from a cancer hospital.
    • The device was a "proof of concept" to see whether John's theory of electronic conduction in such materials (published in Science in 1972) was correct. Ironically, the Nobel winners did it the other way-- they stumbled upon high conductivity in another oxidized polyacetylene and then developed a model (pretty much the same as John's with the addition of solitons for the special case of pure polyacetylene) to explain it.
    • Many anticancer drugs generate reactive oxygen species. So John was also looking at that too. All "physics". In a later reincarnation, John became a psychiatrist. Midbrain melanin is thought to play a role in psychiatric disease. So he also worked with psychiatric drugs. BTW, the inventor of the personal computor also eventually became a practicising physician. I'll expand upon John's interesting story later. Pproctor 13:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The process is not silly. It has a very important purpose of preventing Wikipedia from becoming a collection of worthless or incorrect or biased information. Because of the initial lack of sources and the very little information that could be found via google and other search engines, I can see why it was nominated. It is now clear that the article belongs, thanks to your providing additional sources as well as the digging deeper of other editors. This artile should be kept as long as it maintains NPOV and is based upon completely verifiable information, not just information that you know about because you work with him. will381796 16:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry the info was not complete and yes, I know about the importance of the vetting process. I was hit by this deletion petition only three-four days after initiating the entry and had only barely begun setting it up--not a lot of time to get it into shape. This petition is just harassment from somebody I got crosswise with and who has been systematically vandalizing whatever posts of mine he can find in some sort of sick game of retribution.
  • IIRC, John has about 40-50 publications. I have only tracked down some of them. Hopefully the additional (if rather jumbled) information has been helpful. I will move it to the site ASAP. At least this got me organizing it. Also, uniquely with bios, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons allows some limited use of personal communications from the subject. Pproctor 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and give the two mud wrestlers a 24-hour block for disruption. Edit wars should not be brought here. VivianDarkbloom 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: *Since when is a thorough debate "mud wrestling?" And what happened to assuming WP:Good_faith and don't WP:BITE the newcomers? Both of us have been completely respectful to the other's point of view, thank you. will381796 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More reply

The exact exerpt from Hush's ANYAS article reads:

"Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor57 who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"

Similarly, the abstract of the review article "The Function of Melanins" says:

" Aside from camouflage, its (melanins) other roles can be brought together by a unifying hypothesis as first proposed by .... and 'McGinness nearly 20 years ago."

WP:PROF likes multiple accomplishments. Remember, besides characterizing the electronic and physical properties of the melanins in these and later papers, John did two things WRT the gadget at issue. The first was to define conduction mechanisms in polyacetylene-like compounds (ref. 1). This is a large part of what Shirakawa et al got the Nobel for. BTW, they claim not to have seen John's previous analysis in Science. So these were independent developments.

The other was, as Hish notes, "the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device". That is, John occupies the same position in the history of organic electronics as the guys who built the first transistor. Nothing analogous showed up for a decade or two. John also got two patents for solid-state organic polymer batteries, at roughly the same time as did the Nobel winners. Interestingly, the description of the material they ended up using in their batteries is essentially identical to the one John started with in 1972.

Similarly, I haven't listed this yet, but John was also the first researcher to demonstrate that the toxicity of the anticancer drug cisplatin is due to generation of reactive oxygen species ROS, as well as the fact that the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, and bleomycin has an important extracellular component involving ROS. All avery big deals these days and by itself enough to qualify any researcher for WP:PROF. Similarly, John did signicant work on structured water (the basis of most MRI}, and the toxicity of certain psychiatric medications. Not bad for a solid-state physicist.

Also see the review article "The Function of melanin".

Additional Sample papers:

McGinness J, Kishimoto A, Hollister LE. Avoiding neurotoxicity with lithium-carbamazepine combinations. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1990;26(2):181-4.

McGinness JE, Grossie B Jr, Proctor PH, Benjamin RS, Gulati OP, Hokanson JA. Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1986;18(1):17-24.

McGinness J. A new view of pigmented neurons. J Theor Biol. 1985 Aug 7;115(3):475-6.

Gulati OP, Nordmann H, Aellig A, Maignan MF, McGinness J. Protective effects of O-(beta-hydroxyethyl)-rutosides (HR) against adriamycin-induced toxicity in rats. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther. 1985 Feb;273(2):323-34.

Schrauzer GN, McGinness JE, Ishmael D, Bell LJ. Alcoholism and cancer. I. Effects of long-term exposure to alcohol on spontaneous mammary adenocarcinoma and prolactin levels in C3H/St mice. J Stud Alcohol. 1979 Mar;40(3):240-6.

Pietronigro DD, McGinness JE, Koren MJ, Crippa R, Seligman ML, Demopoulos HB. Spontaneous generation of adriamycin semiquinone radicals at physiologic pH. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(5):405-14.

McGinness JE, Crippa PR, Kirkpatrick DS, Proctor PH. Reversible and irreversible changes in hydrogen ion titration curves of melanins. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(3):217-23.

Kirkpatrick DS, McGinness JE, Moorhead WD, Corry PM, Proctor PH. High-frequency dielectric spectroscopy of concentrated membrane suspensions. Biophys J. 1978 Oct;24(1):243-5.

I vote yes, to keep the entry Pproctor 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The only feature I see here which could meet WP:PROF are the papers in Science and Nature. But a handful of papers in the top level journals does not by itself confer notability. JoshuaZ 14:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Also note that none of the papers seems to be cited more than a handful of times. Whether as Proctor claims they deserve to be cited more is not for Wikipedia to decide. They would need to be actually cited in order for that to go towards notability. JoshuaZ 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC) abstaining for now, pending more information about certain notability claims. JoshuaZ 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Now at Keep Per evidence given by Proctor on his talk page that some of these papers have been heavily cited (in the lows hundreds) and various other points. JoshuaZ 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

)

[edit] John McGinness Bio

Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.

If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.

If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.

BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete based on this diff alone [2]. Proctor, an AFD is not for you to air your grievances with the system or with particular editors. You have cluttered this page with self-serving garbage because your article about a non-notable person that appears to be written more for self-aggrandisement is up for deletion. •Jim62sch• 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this AFD only occurred because I offended certain people over on Raymond Damadian by defending Dr Damadian, an avowed creationist. Check it out on talk:Raymond V. Damadian.
The tremendous irony is that I am reasonably well known in human evolutionary biology. E.g., I published a paper in the journal Nature on one of few known examples of classic Darwinian natural selection in human evolution-- Nature , vol 228, 1970, p 868 "Similar Functions of Uric Acid and Ascorbate in Man". Likewise, Dr. McGinness' work pertains to the other significant example of natural-selection in humans, skin pigmentation and latitude.
One reason I supported Dr. Damadian's claims to be one of the originators of MRI was to elevate the discussion and provide NPOV by showing that we board-certified, card-carrying "Darwinists" call things as we see them, even with creationists. Next thing you know, I am accused of vandalism and promoting "creationism"--obviously, somebody had not a clue. Similarly, my posts on other pages are getting deleted under spurious "vanity" objections and this Bio gets an RFD. Pointing this out is not "clutter" and it is quite relevant to this RFD.
Back to the subject at hand. Citing WP:NOR-- You are merely expression "opinion". Not allowed here. Do you have any cite, evidence, etc., that Dr McGinness did not do exactly as the definitive documentary evidence shows. Similarly, how can you claim with a straight face that the inventor of the "Plastic Transistor" is not "notable". If you have a new color cell phone or a color display on your car radio, you are probably looking at the ultimate descendent of Dr McGinness' device. Pproctor 14:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_John_McGinness_9900.html"