Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Honeycutt


 * 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 delete. See, mutatis mutandis, Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction.  Sandstein  10:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

James M. Honeycutt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic, once you look past the obvious COI editing (most of which was cut down), for the following reasons:

Under WP:NPROF, only (1) or (5) could possibly apply. Analysing both:


 * 1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.: We do not need to consider the limitations of the former "broadly construed" part, because this individual's impact cannot be demonstrated by independent reliable sources (the 2nd condition).
 * 2) The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.: Being "Professor Emeritus" simply means retired professor. His position is listed simply as "professor emeritus" on Louisiana State University's website: https://www.lsu.edu/hss/cmst/people/faculty/JHoneycutt.php -- no reliable sources to call him distinguished. So this criteria also fails.

On WP:GNG: we fail on significant coverage, secondary sources and independence of subject (the few books on the matter are all authored by him, or he's a key contributor).

We do not give every single lecturer and/or professor a Wikipedia article. The criteria to determine the cases where an article is warranted is not met in this case. Also see AfD for his theory: Articles for deletion/Imagined interaction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THIS DELETION FLAG. IT DOESN"T EVEN PASS THE SNIFF TEST!

UNDER WP:NPROF, BOTH (1) AND (5) ARE MET.
 * has held... distinguished professor...: Flag links his faculty bio and says  " -- no reliable sources to call him distinguished."

As the flag correctly states, "Being "Professor Emeritus" simply means retired professor." So what logical gymnastics moves does one use to get from there, to where it ALSO means "not distinguished". When distinguished Professors retire they become... wait for it.... Professor Emeritus. But that's not the worst thing. The worst thing is...

YOU ARE NOT EVEN READING YOUR OWN "EVIDENCE" THAT YOU LINK!!! YOUR LINK clearly states he received the distinguished faculty award at LSU in 2012. This can be verified with the office of academic affairs' HERE. Just in case you don't think a distinguished faculty award makes you a "distinguished professor", let me clear that one up. It awards "sustained excellence" and carries with it a permanent salary increase.At LSU, an award with a salary increase is classified as a "designated honorific". Recipients of designated honorifics at LSU are unambiguously and explicitly considered "distinguished professors". You should actually READ my evidence. It's really, really good, and by "my evidence" I include your link, because every link here from both you and me supports James Honeycutt meeting NPROF(5). Nothing supports your claim. NADA!

-- THE END! THIS UNABILGOUSLY AND VERIFIABLY MEETS THE ONLY CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE MET, NPROF(5). Please Remove the deletion flag. VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As the discussion policy indicates: "the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as [|the strength of argument is also very important]. The strength of these thoughtfully argued replies should be evident in comparison to the "votes" they respond to. These "votes" assert evidence-free objections with brief buzzwords ("unreliable",, "fails", "borderline") accompanied by a non-specific link to a page full of numerous, specific, and varied criteria and I guess we are supposed to assume the buzzword inherently demonstrates a violation of one or more of them. The guidelines say "A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration... It is important, therefore, to also explain why you are voting the way you are."

Doesn't even apply. This is flat out ignoring what BOTH GNG AND NPROF EXPLICITLY SAY, which is NPROF is "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline" and that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" (like NPROF). QUOTE: "failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is IRRELEVANT if an academic is notable under this guideline." VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

While this is overall irrelevant since (5) is met, it may be somewhat relevant under (1), but it doesn't seem definitive, or even terribly important given that the NPROF guidelines for impact don't place value on any particular metric. If h-index was important it would say so, because it does give general and specific notes regarding the many ways to establish impact, none of which include h-index. The general notes simply indicate the standard is impact above the "average professor", a low bar which the comments [|here] indicate he has met. Even if you place stock in the H-index, hirsch himself said 20 was good and 40 was outstanding. 34 is well above good and closer to outstanding, so you don't have to do any math once you realize that if there are some professors with BAD scores (there are), even if the average professor has a good (or even above) score, it is highly unlikely that 34 would not beat the average, so even this comment would say don't delete, this criteria is met under the "average professor test" enunciated in the general notes to NPROF.

Additionally, NPROF specific notes for criteria 1 indicate that it '''can be met by by a substantial number of citations. He has over 4100''' citations according to the link above, which is nowhere near average. It is very high for a communications researcher. Let's be generous and just dock him the 800 citations that seem weird on google scholar, bringing him to only (LOL) 3300+ citations, STILL way higher than anything an "average" professor will ever see. Here are some numbers to help you realize how much higher, put in terms of citations per article rather than a career total. 44% of publications are not cited AT ALL. Simply getting 10 citations puts you in the top quartile (top 24% actually). Honeycutt has THRITY-SIX ARTICLES OVER 25, AND TOO MANY TO COUNT IN THE TOP QUARTILE! He has 5 publications with over 100 citations, which puts a paper in the top 1.8% of papers.

Also, NPROF specific notes for criteria 1 include "contributing factors... significant academic awards and honors... may include, for example... awards by notable academic and scholarly societies". Among other awards Honeycutt has received BOTH the top article of the year award AND the distinguished book of the year award from the National Communication Association (NCA), the flagship association of the discipline for the United States (top article of the year TWICE). NCA has also awarded him top paper 12 different times. The International communication Association (ICA), the discipline's most prestigious association worldwide, has awarded him top paper 3 different times. That is so far above average that you can't even see average from up there. VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a non-specific evidence free assertion these citations lack reliability (I guess ALL of these many citations are unreliable? why are they unreliable? Maybe make an actual argument ab out the unreliability of just one or two?) In this case the [|reliability guidelines] are clearly met. They state specifically state that "article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources''' or by well-regarded academic presses. DO we have any articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals? Why yes we do! Comm Monographs is literally THE TOP JOURNAL in the discipline. Check! DO we have any, let's say, books that have been vetted by the scholarly community. Indeed! Distinguished book of the year award from the discipline's top scholarly association in the US. Check! Both are already cited on the wiki page. Need I go on? VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing marginal about it! He IS a distinguished professor. It's an evidentiary slam dunk above! A bizarre reluctance to acknowledge that affects the credibility of your "unreferenced mess" arguments, since some may perceive it as an end-run around the slam dunk on notability.

UNREFERENCED? It has plenty of references. I address their reliability above and extensively on the [|theory AfP page]. You literally say NOTHING about their unreliability. MESS? How? I see a introductory paragraph describing the who he is, very well delineated sections for his early education, later career, and his varied research interests, followed by sample lists of books, and then of peer-reviewed articles. It's an extraordinary claim to say that is such a "mess" it can't be fixed. VirtualSwayy (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Here is the link to his google scholar page. Google scholar puts his h-index at 34. However two of the articles that factor into that, including the single most cited article which accounts for more than 20% of his lifetime citations, don't have his name listed as an author. Agreed that the article is a mess and creates the perception that large chunks of it were written by someone with a COI. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed odd that some of the GS entries do not contain his name as author. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
 * I am changing my comment to delete, and have edited my top level statement to reflect that. Read through WP:TNT and that seems a good fit for the current incarnation of the article. Entirely independent of any conclusion about the underlying subject's notability either way. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete – from the number of citations this is a very borderline WP:NPROF case, but the promotional writing and lack of reliable sources are major problems that cannot be easily solved. At the very least this needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. – bradv  🍁  01:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite all the objections from the subject's affiliate above, this article still does not have a single reference to an independent reliable source. If there any usable sources out there, I am unable to find them. – bradv  🍁  23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

And... REFER TO ME BY MY USERNAME. "Affiliate" is a transparent and petty little attempt to assault my credibility, and an unfounded one. I disclosed my interest in this topic as the very first thing I wrote. You SHOULD be focused on the arguments rather than the user that posted them, but you will need to actually READ the discussion first.

HERE ARE MORE SECONDARY SOURCES ALL REPLUTABLE AND NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

* This textbook not written by Honeycutt * Another textbook not written by Honeycutt * This Encyclopedia Entry not written by Honeycutt * This book chapter not by Honeycutt * This review by Jim Abbot of Honeycutt's award-winning book <br

HERE ARE MORE PRIMARY RESEARCH STUDIES NOT BY HONEYCUTT:

There are A LOT more since he has been cited 4100+ times, but here is a sampling including this

recent article in the NCA's most prestigious journal.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417940903006057

https://search.proquest.com/openview/e3db9d4595a9fe3984b3459cb084d84e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2029838

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463373.2011.597273

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2014.939295

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093650212438392

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/F760-0671-2402-K65N

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08934215.2014.936563

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1041794X.2012.726688

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-2623-4_15

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.30.2.d

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.32.1.c

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v53n03_04

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/IC.32.4.b

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0276236616683897

https://proa.ua.pt/index.php/jdmi/article/view/913

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/014466610X524263


 * Delete Even cutting out the dubious cites on GS we are left with around 3000 cites and an h-index of 32. Marginal for a pass of WP:Prof in the well cited field of pop-pschology. His citations on Research Gate are 1263, some three times less than those on GS: curiouser and curiouser. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete per WP:TNT. While I think that the subject is probably marginally notable per WP:NPROF C1 and possibly C8 (although certainly not C5), the case doesn't look so strong per previous comments.  The unreferenced mess that is the existing article would need complete reworking in order to be a useful article. Blow it up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable per above analysis. Given the COI problems here and at the related Imagined interaction, also up for deletion, plus the suspiciously similar verbal styles shared by the OP and their single-issue defender, this is a candidate for G11 speedy deletion as bald self-promotion.  Blow it up.  --Lockley (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete While a $2000 raise and a watch are nice, I remain unconvinced that they represent the kind of top-notch lifetime achievement in scholarly work that WP:PROF is about. With the notability case borderline at best, the current content is a mess, beyond the reach of ordinary editing to fix. WP:TNT. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2020 (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.