Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. Howard, Jr.

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 of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 14:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James F. Howard, Jr.

Vanity article of/by a professor of neurology. No real claim to notability, not even a list of publications. Fails Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics delete BadSeed 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the page you cite is neither policy nor guideline and was written by a single user less than two weeks ago. Monicasdude 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: A7. Does nothing to assert notability. It's a resume. --Kinu 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per below comments. --Kinu 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • ... or, at the least, userfy with Howardj0503, the creator and subject of this article. --Kinu 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete db-bio Avi 21:26, 6 February 2006(UTC)
  • Delete Publish or Perish-wise, how reknown is he throught his field? What makes him more notable than any other Dr. Tom, Professor Dick, or Adjunct Harry? -- Avi 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly not a speedy delete. Given standard academic usage, the listing as "Distinguished Professor" is a claim of notability/recognition (as the self-professed Yale graduate above ought to know). Subject of article shows a significant record of professional activity, involvement in medical advocacy/research groups, etc, and if he wrote the article himself (as seems likely) he's as guilty of modesty as of vanity. Note than none of the advocates of deletion have bothered to do any of the standard/appropriate checks using non-Wikipedia resources. Monicasdude 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment prey tell, what is this "distinguished professor" award? Who awards it, to whom is it awarded and on what criteria? This article shows precisely no activity worthy of inclusion. It is a list of titles he has held. All academics are judged on what they publish, not by the positions they hold or the number of "distinguished professor" awards that they receive. Twice you've said "he's as guilty of modesty as he is of vanity", have you ever heard of him? Do you know who he is, and more importantly, what are these qualities which he was too modest to include? If they were in the article the I would reconsider my nomination. --BadSeed 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Distinguished professorship is generally given by the faculty member's University. For example, this gentleman's institution, UNC gives out a lot. It is not a reflection or judgment by a jury of peers in his field; the criterion for "distinguished" status in that sense of the word is publication and acceptance of theories/practices/ideas by that person. --Kinu 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the website for his department, for comparison to his peers. Oh, and his endowed professorship is named for his father. --Kinu 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you inferring this statement from the fact that [1] says "James F. Howard Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease" rather than "James F. Howard, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease" ? Note that the webpage title is also "James F. Howard" rather than "James F. Howard, Jr." —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:40Z
      • It's safe to assume that endowed professorships are named for the person who made the endowment, as per the first link I provided in this thread, and not for the person who holds them. If it was his father, then it is named after his father. Then again, if it was he who donated the money to the school, then it would simply be dumping cash to move up in the department. Not judging him, in any case, but just trying to figure it out. --Kinu 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • [2] "the newly created endowed chair in his honor from the Broyhill family... creation of an endowed professorship named after Dr. Howard. The chair will be called the James F. Howard, Jr. Distinguished Profesship." —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:59Z
          • Thank you for the third party reference. But, context: Dr. Howard has been giving exceptional care to a family member for the past several years. The family has agreed to express their gratitude through the creation of an endowed professorship named after Dr. Howard. At the least, it sounds like more of a "pat on the back" from someone who can afford it (possibly a higher-up of the Broyhill furniture company, which is based in North Carolina?) than a academically-deserved-only title as asserted by Monicasdude. Again, I'm not "hating on" the gentleman, who clearly does good work in his field... but I am somewhat puzzled and not convinced as to why he deserves an article more so than any other professor, because of his ability to make tenure and achieve endowed status. --Kinu 01:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I said it was a sufficient claim/assertion of notability to meet the Wikipedia threshold in that regard, not that it proved notability. The original nomination for deletion indicated no claim/assertion of notability. And I would think it should be apparent that an academic who achieves tenure and an endowed chair is, by objective standards, more notable than any of the minor celebrities (pornographic video performers, unsigned draft choices by professional sports leagues, Pokemon characters, etc) who are by consensus deemed notable. And I'm puzzled by the argument, often seen here, that an individual is no more notable than anyone else having the same credentials, bypassing the question of whether simply having the credentials is itself notable. Monicasdude 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't read the part about care to a family member; that does sound like a pat on the back. For my part, I may have lower standards for keeping articles on professors than other people. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 01:47Z

• Delete certainly not a speedy. Professor is a assertion of notability, but resumes aren't articles. Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Full professorship via tenure track makes Dr Howard far more notable than the average professor, most of whom don't make it that far. PubMed search on "Howard JF" reveals 58 articles, all of which are in this Dr Howard's area of expertise (electrophysiology and neuroimmunology); I'm sure it's the same guy. Full disclosure: I am also a neurologist and clinical electrophysiologist. Ikkyu2 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that of those 58 articles, 6 or so are by an Australian dentist, not the neurologist in question. Doesn't alter the gist of the argument. Ikkyu2 23:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ovid search found 45 papers in 27 years, some are review articles. Note that publishing alone is not a criteria for fame in one's field; it's how often these papers are cited in others' original research. After all, there are academics who inflate their numbers. --Kinu 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the present discussion is about whether or not the individual meets the criteria of WP:BIO. I think we've put that to rest. I agree with others, above and below, who suggest this article is not WP:PERFECT as is and requires consensus editing. Ikkyu2 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps expand the article then? Give an overview of his research, is it important in the field and if so, why? I don't believe that a simple list of the positions he's held (even if they are senior ones) is a sufficient assertion of notability. If I look up a professor on wikipedia I would expect to find something on what the guy did, not on how big his office is.--BadSeed 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article needs to be expanded, but just wanted to note that "assertion of notability" is usually used w.r.t. "not a CSD A7 candidate". The professorship positions don't warrant an automatic keep, but they do preclude an automatic delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:47Z

• Keep per Ikkyu2, notable academic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:20Z
  • I've cleaned up the article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:31Z
• Keep, distinguished professor. Kappa 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Kinu argues that the title of Distinguished Professor isn't good to go by. 45 papers in 27 years isn't so much, especially for a clinician, who can gather large amounts of data from the patient that he treats. Besides, the journals that he publishes in (Neurology, J. Neuroimmunology, Ann. NY Acad. Sci) are on the weak side. Aand let's look at it like this: if he was known for any advance in the field this fact would occur to anyone in that field and it would say so in the article. Instead, the article is a collection of biographical trivia, nothing beyond a CV. Pilatus 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On what do you base your assertion that Neurology (Lippincott-Williams-Wilkins, informally the "Green Journal") is a journal that is "on the weak side?" On the contrary, it is to the speciality of neurology what the New England Journal is to that of medicine. ANAS is not a "weak" journal, either. Ikkyu2 06:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd call Neuron a strong journal. Brain is also good, then there is J. Phys.. Papers in Science, Nature and PNAS (watch which track!) would also boost the case for notability. Pilatus 10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Those journals are indeed strong journals. However, none of them even will even consider a paper that has to do with clinical neurology. With the occasional and eccentric exception of "Brain," they publish basic neuroscience. Dr Howard is a physician and publishes in medical research journals. Is your "delete" vote predicated on the fact that you consider clinical neurology research to be somehow less notable than basic neuroscience research? That would be odd. Ikkyu2 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually yes. Medical research is kind of an odd thing and physicians are often more concerned with "helping patients" than with "doing science". Why don't we continue the discussion on my talk page? Pilatus 12:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Your assertion that medical research is a fringe pursuit and automatically non-notable is ridiculous and I will not discuss it. You should withdraw your vote. Ikkyu2 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Could User:Howardj0503, whose only edits are to this article and its talk page be the author of his own article? Pilatus 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's safe to assume Howardj0503 is James Howard, as the nomination for deletion said. We frown upon autobiographical articles, but if he is indeed notable, we should keep the article anyway. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 07:30Z
    • What worries me is that James is a Distinguished Professor with an endowed chair and won't tell what earned these honours. Pilatus 10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Reasonable presumption, and [his LoPbN entry is the product of an IP w/ nearly equally focused interest in him. But while autobios are a bad idea almost w/o exception, do bear in mind that the question before us is not whether his version is a good one, but whether the topic would turn into an encyclopedic article after sufficient research.
      --Jerzy•t 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      Independently reached opinion mislocated during ed-conf & later restored. Jerzy•t 07:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - "Distinguished" professorship, without mentioning what criteria for selection and/or particular accomplishments that lead to the honor, is concerning. It leaves the reader wondering why the subject is notable? If someone familiar with the honor/professor/field could provide this information (with sources), it would helpful. —ERcheck @ 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's already established above that a family who enjoyed his medical services paid to have him endowed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 07:15Z
• Del, tentatively. (And A7 probably mistaken, for the record.) Nearly all med school profs are important, but not a lot are notable. I'm being treated by two of them this week, whom i respect and value, but i'm not putting either up for a WP bio.
  --Jerzy•t 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  
• Keep, recognised as a Distinguished Professor in his field by his university. The assessment of importance has already been done for us in this case. --bainer (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The title "distinguished professor" per this individual was not given by the University of North Carolina for this individual's excellence in his field; as mentioned several times above, it was an endowment in which the recipient was specifically named. --Kinu 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you asserting that the title of Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina can be bought? You're going to need to prove that, because it's a pretty wild assertion. There's no way UNC would have conferred this title on Dr. Howard without the consensus of their Academic Senate, no matter how much endowment was offered. Also, if you read his articles, he's pretty clearly a leader in the field of single-fiber EMG for myasthenia diagnosis; he pioneered major refinements in the technique. You should consider confining your commentary to things you understand a little better. Also, I request that you either stop this smear job immediately or start providing references for your incredible assertions. Ikkyu2 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The University, as you stated, evaluated Dr. Howard's contributions and found him meriting the "Distinguished" honor. Including specifics of the accomplishments and contributions of the Professor should eliminate this brouhaha. —ERcheck @ 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I made no such smear; I was basing this on evidence found. I noted that University does give out distinguished professorships based on merit, as per [3]. These are ones that go through the "standard" channels for endowed professorships as established at other universities: the benefactor makes an endowment to the university, and the university determines who shall receive them. I then compared that to this specific situation, and noted that, based on a source provided by Quarl, that this particular endowment was given to establish this professorship, per the stipulation that it be named for and be held by this individual, per his service to one particular family member of the endower, and not his accomplishments in the broader sense of the word to his field, his patients as a whole, or his university. Last time I checked, those are verifiable facts, per what little information is avaiable, and I have repeatedly stated that no such smear was made. --Kinu 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be more important than average professor and thus passing "professor test" on WP:BIO. Anyway, if article about Paris Hilton or wrestlers is kept, why not articles about people who actually can do anythink. --Jan Smolik 10:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Applause. Too many AfD discussions confuse celebrity and notability. Monicasdude 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Paris Hilton is notable because people write about her. That's fine. Now James Howard here, we are still trying to establish if someone has written about him. The question is: does an endowment given for service to a particular person establish notability already? If that is not sufficient, are there any other achievements hat might establish it? Pilatus 17:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would welcome more articles about academics such as this. Edgar181 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets the minimum requirements of WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 17:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete or userfy, does not appear to pass the professor test. Citations needed. Stifle 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Per Hall Monitor and per this quote from Monicasdude: "more notable than any of the minor celebrities (pornographic video performers, unsigned draft choices by professional sports leagues, Pokemon characters, etc) who are by consensus deemed notable."
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 7, 2006, 19:53 (UTC)
• keep. -- Vansig 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Edgar181. New Progressive 14:02, 11 February 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.