Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Paul Minieri

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Tetracycline litigation. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. Paul Minieri

[edit]
P. Paul Minieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. I reviewed the references in this article, finding the following:

  • Citation 1.) and Citation 2.) are both links to Facebook and are to his descendents. They do not contribute anything to a claim of notability.

  • Citation 3.) is a statement about the number of legal cases related to the article's subject's work on the drug tetracycline. One actual case number is provided, but even this is a case about the drug, not about the article's subject. The article's subject was not named in any lawsuit regarding the drug and a claim of notability cannot be made on his involvement with a drug that WAS the subject of any or multiple lawsuit(s).

  • Citation 4.) is a reference to an article in which the subject's name does not appear.

  • Citation 5.) is a reference to a Time Magazine article about legal battle over tetracycline, not about the subject of the article. What I could read for free on the Internet did not mention the subject's name— it may be hasty of me, I admit, but I doubt that his name appears anywhere in the article in any other context than possibly as a brief mention as having been involved in research on the drug, if that.

  • Citation 6.) is apparently a repetition of the name of the publisher and location of a work listed in the article, not an actual reference or a citation.

  • Citation 7.) is a link to a patent on which the article's subject's name appears— having a name on a patent does not establish a claim of notability, never mind that he shares the patent with two other researchers and that the patent itself, though it deals with the production of tetracycline, is not in any way particularly notable.

Having said all that, I also did an independent search for information about this individual. What comes up on searches for him are his publications, of which he does have a few. Having publications, however, does not establish a claim of notability: I could find nothing that talked about HIM, nothing to establish HIS notability independent of his work, nothing to suggest that HE himself was notable. His work on tetracycline was interesting, and should probably be cited in the Wikipedia article on tetracycline. And I am sure he was a very, very nice man. But I do not see sufficient material here to warrant a claim of notability, general, academic, or otherwise: to the best of my research and in alignment with the information in the existing Wikipedia article he was not a member of the faculty at any university, was not the editor of any major (or minor) academic journal, received no prestigious awards during or after his lifetime, made no impact outside of academia, was not elected member of any highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, etc., etc. He co-authored (never single-authored) several research papers that dealt with tetracycline, and single-authored one 6-page publication titled, "New Reaction of Nitriles: Amides from alkenes and mononitriles" in 1948 which has been of no enduring significance or interest inside or outside of the field of organic chemistry. Based on these findings, I propose that this article on him be Deleted from the Wikipedia website as a non-notable individual. KDS4444Talk 09:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some independent search and came with some references which qualify the subject as notable. http://www.uni.illinois.edu/~jkblue2/chemistry.html This article has the mention of Mineiri as the one who discovered the ritter reaction along with Ritter. Plus, he wrote a number of publications which had, somehow, influence on the organic chemistry. Usmanwardag (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That link is to a student's personal web page on the University of Illinois web site. You have been editing Wikipedia articles since August of 2011, which means you are about to finish your second year: do you understand yet that this is not a reliable third party source of information? KDS4444Talk 15:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "Minieri" and "tetracycline" finds many book references because of the famous Tetracycline litigation concerning his patent. I think that counts as "impact outside of academia." Contra the nomination, his paper describing his PhD work, "A New Reaction of Nitriles. I. Amides from Alkenes and Mononitriles" (i.e the Ritter reaction) was not only cited 375 times, but has been of continuing interest inside the field of organic chemistry, being cited over a dozen times in publications printed so far this year, and being discussed in numerous textbooks on organic chemistry. -- 202.124.88.17 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Ritter reaction is very notable. No argument. Say, have you considered getting a username? It's free and easy. KDS4444Talk 02:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that tetracycline work satisfies WP:PROF #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...And that is what the article on the Ritter reaction does. I don't disagree with you. (But then, I don't think you are listening to me...) KDS4444Talk 07:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're interpreting WP:PROF differently. In particular, there's nothing in WP:PROF that requires "notability independent of his work." And I think that the tetracycline work (which is not the same as the Ritter reaction) satisfies WP:PROF notability criterion #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." -- 202.124.88.18 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. I withdraw the interpretation. There remains, to the best of my knowledge and research, no significant, reliable, independent third-party sources that discuss the subject of this article. At best, I could see the article being merged into the article on the Ritter reaction, though I do not think there is evidence to necessarily warrant even this. You have not addressed the fact that even Ritter himself does not have an article, and are focusing only on the number of times that this individual's collaborative work has been cited. I do not believe that this means we need a stand-alone article on him nor one reviewing his family life or telling us what a nice guy he was (which is what we currently have). When I ask myself, "Is this article the kind of thing I would expect to find in a paper encyclopedia?" I continue to hear myself saying, "Not really, no," in response. KDS4444Talk 16:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NOTPAPER. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Which states that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia...there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." It goes on to state that although articles are theoretically unlimited in scope, they should nevertheless be limited in practice in order to make them digestible as is done in a paper encyclopedia. My concern is with regard to content, not scope. Under WP:WHATISTOBEDONE it states, "When you wonder what should or should not be an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." That is more to my point, and that is where I feel this article does not seem to meet the standard of inclusion. KDS4444Talk 10:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I disagree, believing that WP:PROF is the relevant guideline for inclusion, and that the subject passes WP:PROF, for reasons given above. -- 202.124.88.10 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Mineri discovered that tetracycline could be produced through fermentation. He discovered ritter reaction in collaboration with Ritter and received a patent on Tetracycline which certainly qualifies him as notable. Usmanwardag (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If these things are so, and if they make him notable, then please provide evidence of their significance in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Even John J. Ritter does not have a Wikipedia article (his reaction, yes; him, no). Also: please explain the basis of your "Speedy Keep" recommendation— the normal discussion period for an AfD is seven days and I do not yet see any reason to close the discussion before then. Please advise. KDS4444Talk 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Due to lack of biographical sources, does not meet the general notability guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep after stubbification. I think the Ritter reaction and the tetracycline synthesis patent issue are together enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 and avoid falling into WP:BIO1E. But, an encyclopedia article here can only contain material coming from reliable sources, and I completely agree with the nominator's demolition of the sources as nominated. I am unable to find sources for most of the personal detail in the article as nominated, but have stubbed it back to a short article that reports only on the two things I can source: the Ritter reaction and tetracycline. It may be necessary to keep this article as a perma-stub, but I think it's ok in that state. However, I would prefer deletion over reversion to its expanded and badly sourced version. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Tetracycline litigation is probably a better merge target. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Final?] Comment Although the trimmed-down article is a great improvement, the first reference does not discuss the article's subject other than trivially and the second reference is from a teacher's guide that was never assigned an ISBN (presumably because it was considered too ephemeral, a reason given here by a Canadian issuing authority— which issues them for pretty much everything— for not assigning an ISBN to a given book). This makes its reliability as a source somewhat dubious. No other reliable sources on this individual have been identified other than those mentioning his name on publications and patents, as already discussed. KDS4444Talk 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of reliable sourcing given significant effort. Should be covered in history sections of the phenomena in question. I'm interesting to see the outcome of this debate. If Minieri deserves an article so might James Christenson whose PhD experiment on CP Violation won his advisors a Noble Prize in Physics [1]. Poor Jim isn't even mentioned in the CP Violation article but then again doctoral students are guided by their advisors. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P._Paul_Minieri&oldid=1169316105"