Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. Howard, Jr. (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

James F. Howard, Jr.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to me to fail WP:PROF. h-index is in the low teens, and he is not the first author on the papers with then most citations. The only possible claim under WP:PROF is #5, holding a "distinguished" chair. However, as pointed out in the previous no consensus AfD back in 2006, Dr. Howard has had cared for a Broyhill family member. The family then endowed a professorship named after Dr. Howard at UNC. "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". I tend to agree. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not our job to distinguish the "deservedly notable". If somebody rises to notability through fraud, favoritism or nepotism, all we have to do is ascertain the fact, not delete the article on the grounds that the notability is "undeserved". --Paularblaster (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is generally true. But to me, the distinguished chair criterion is a shorthand for academic achievement, and I can't find anything Dr Howard has done to advance the field. So the real question is, what can be said about him encyclopedically? His article exists in a vacuum, with the only incoming links being Bellows Falls, Vermont and List of people from Vermont. This debate happened in the previous AfD, and the result was no consensus. So in this case, some people were unconvinced by this apparent passing of point 5. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Web of Science shows 75 papers, with citations of the 5 top ones 109, 72, 69  65, 63. He is senior author in many of them, and they are in good journals . I consider this to establish that he's an authority in the field. He seems to   be  the editor of a   textbook  UNC-chapel Hill is a first-rate research university, and he has been full professor there before any question of the chair arose. UNC is reworking its site, & most glinks no longer   work--I corrected the link to his  home page, now     DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, do secondary sources say are his contributions to the understanding of myasthenia gravis? I realize this case is borderline, so I am arguing that instead of assuming that citation counts work, one needs to have a statement about the actual contribution(s). Abductive  (reasoning) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They say it by citing him. The authorities in a field are the people who get cited. That;s the nature of academic science, and the way notability is shown in that part of the world. We just record it.    DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, they could be citing him to say that he was wrong. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on basis of DGG's clear analysis. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - while I agree with DGG's analysis, I have alternate reasons: Howard is a full professor of Medicine, who sits in an endowed chair, at a highly selective university. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. On reflection, questionable circumstances of the endowment notwithstanding, I think this does pass WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (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.