Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Warrick

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 keep. This is a lengthy discussion during which the article was changed significantly through editing (this was the state when it was nominated). The delete !votes argue based on a low prominence of the subject in scientific circles leading to failing WP:PROF, the relevant notability guideline. The keep !votes argue that "significant impact" as described in said guideline is highly subjective and needs to be considered in a context of the science of the academic in question. As demonstrated by those in favor of keeping the article, the subject in question seems to be a respected expert on the particular subject of their studies and has been referenced as such both in scientific and other reliable sources (the number of citations alone cannot be sufficient to determine the impact of their work (just like the Google test isn't) precisely because the number of citations is determined by the "size" of the field of science and this has been argued correctly by those in favor of keeping the article). This combined with the coverage in reliable sources like the BBC establishes that the subject is indeed notable enough to pass both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Regards SoWhy 07:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Warrick

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

Assistant professor who "has two papers published in Nature on bird flight. I don't think he is different from the 2 million or so other professors who are just doing their jobs. Abductive (reasoning) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the text to detail the nature of Dr. Warrick's research, and to add the aforementioned international coverage that it received when it was first announced in 2005. The original article did Dr. Warrick a disservice by not explaining why his research concluded. Warrah (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few people commenting here have published in such journals. The consensus view as spelled out at WP:PROF is that if
  1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
  6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
  9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
then they are notable. Does this professor meet any of these? Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the "keep". Don't confuse the impact of the journal with the impact of a single paper within it. One or two papers in Nature do not confer notability simply by virtue of them appearing in that journal. They may ultimately not have all that much impact, or they may – citations will tell. This illustrates the basic hurdle for assistant professors and why their WP articles are usually pre-mature: their work simply has not had enough time to accumulate in quantity or to prove whether it is significant – That is indeed the basic problem here. I noticed that the most highly-cited paper "Mechanical power output of bird flight" (which is indeed in Nature) does not even list him as primary or corresponding author. He was evidently a student when that paper was published, so he was clearly not the primary force behind that work. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment In my opinion, scholars who have successfully made their papers on prestigious international academic journals should all have their own articles. The opposite is not true, though, for some noted scholars in the academia do not submit their papers to prestigious international journals; they submit them to the colleges' publications instead.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is true; the journal is prestigious and it rubs off on the authors therein, or the prestigiousness of the authors has rubbed off on the journal? The answer is that it is the individual authors on each paper, and the quality of those papers, that make the journals prestigious. Since we are not qualified to determine if the author is following in this tradition, we need secondary sources to make this clear. Also, there is a general sentiment on Wikipedia that notability is not inherited; that it doesn't rub off. Finally, allowing articles on everybody who has ever published in "prestigious" journals will lead to hundreds of thousands of articles on subjects nobody cares about. Abductive (reasoning) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF is defined as "a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work." Dr. Warrick's research was the subject of both scientific media and mainstream media coverage, including the BBC and Associated Press, which is highly unusual for ornithological research. The article surpasses WP:RS requirements. Warrah (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, such coverage is not at all unusual, ornithological or otherwise. In the "scientific media" journals routinely spotlight publications, for example the "research highlights" column in Nature carries maybe a dozen descriptions every week. Mainstream media coverage is also not unusual, though it is typically more of a 15 minutes of fame-type of phenomenon. For example, oodles of epidemiologists are all over the news right now giving their spiel about swine flu. Contrary to what your argument would suggest, these sorts of events do not make them notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Response. Aside from the fact that your opinion conflicts with the principles of WP:PROF, it also leads to a proverbial Pandora's box of problems and contradictions. For example, what is a "prestigious international academic journal", only Science and Nature, or would there be others (the problem of subjectivity)? What about lab techs, whose names routinely appear in author lists in these publications, who are clearly not notable (contradictory consequence of your system)? What about people who only wrote one such publication, which ultimately turned out not to have any real impact (violation of WP:PROF)? I'm afraid these are only some of the exact reasons why the condition you propose is not part of the notability-vetting principles of WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Prestigious journals mean journals having high impact factors. And lab techs generally do not have notability, even if they appear on these journals. They're not the same as scholars.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You're just kicking the can down the road. "High impact factor" is still subjective – who decides what the cutoff is? You? "Scholars" is also subjective. Many techs make substantive contributions to research projects. While this doesn't necessarily make them notable, your system would confer such by virtue of them having their names on a paper. You're now forced into a position of subjectively arguing that they essentially aren't "enough of a scholar". Your system falls apart from all its subjective and contradictory implications, which is probably why it isn't part of WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. He does not seem sufficiently notable to me by academic criteria alone - but the existence and content of BBC article would by itself seem to indicate sufficient notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Having read about his work more it now seems to me sufficiently interesting to include on academic grounds alone. Numbers of article don't matter so much as notability of contribution. BBC and Scientific America judged it notable enough to quote the research and in the case of the BBC to warrant an interview with Warrick and several direct quotes. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Mentioned in the BBC and Scientific America is enough but two articles in Nature and now one in the Proceedings of the Royal Society I think should enough for anyone. (Msrasnw (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I am not sure that the fact that a more notable prof. hasn't got a page is really a useful argument. It just shows how our coverage is patchy and perhaps that more people should spend time working on creating articles rather than deleting them and arguing about it. I have added a little article on Prof. Lauder now. So in answer to your question "and who else is going to?" Lots of people, including me, add to wikipedia who are unconnected with the subjects of the articles. Is it being suggested that Dr Warrick wrote this entry? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It's not supposed to be an argument; I just thought people would be interested. Abductive (reasoning) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well-chosen example that refutes the opinion of some that all academics are desperate to have their profiles on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The article has been substantially changed since it was created, which may explain that comment. Warrah (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:PROF -
1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
Clearly passes: 2 articles in Nature, 1 in Proceedings of the Royal Society
7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
Clearly passes: Articles on BBC and in Scientific American on his research naming and quoting him (Msrasnw (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Having the article in Nature is great for one's career, but it takes citations of one's papers to meet the "substantial impact" in point 1. As for point 7, lay people are interested in hummingbird flight, so Warrick's work made for some good copy, but again, those notvoting delete are aware of those news items. Prowling as I do in the halls of academe, I assure that every prof has news clippings taped to his or her door that feature his or her research. In fact, it is often a requirement for tenure that one has such news mentions, meaning that, say, half of all tenured profs will be cited in the lay press. Abductive (reasoning) 10:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two articles in Nature, one in Proceedings of the Royal Society and articles on his reasearch in BBC and Scientific America is not what 2 million other academics have. "Making good copy" - is possibly part of making notability. The BBC and Scientific American are not just the lay press. The BBC site is read by 10s of millions and the Science Page a highly read part of this. Scientific American is one of, if not the leading popular science magazine (published since 1845). Notability as judged by them, I think might be part of what we are supposed to record. If many read about someone and their research there shouldn't we think about having it here. Nature is perhaps one of the most prominent British scientific journals and the Royal Society (founded in 1660) and its journals 'Proceedings of the Royal Society' perhaps the most prominent. We are warned that "Measures of citability ... may be used as a rough guide in evaluating ... but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." I think that good enough for Nature, Scientific American, the BBC and the Royal Society but not Wikipedia seems a bit odd.(Msrasnw (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't see significant impact. Getting in the AP newswire is not substantial. Perhpas I'm opposed to letting biographies of questionably notable living persons be kept so they can later be vehicles to harm the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting on the AP news wire is extremely substantial, particularly for a niche ornithological research study that answered an important question regarding avian locomotion. The article passes WP:RS and WP:GNG without any problem, and Dr. Warrick has established himself as a leader in his field. Warrah (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An important question? Can you show that this question was vexing scientists before Warrick answered it? Can you show a reliable source that calls Warrick a leader? Abductive (reasoning) 16:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"These latest data disprove conclusions from numerous earlier studies that hummingbirds hovered like insects despite their profound muscle and skeletal differences." US National Science Foundation
"Previous investigations into the flight of the hummingbird had suggested that it could be employing the same mechanisms as insects, which often hover and dart in a manner similar to the bird." Scientific American
Difficult to find reliable sources calling individual scientists in biophysics leaders (Msrasnw (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Warrah is still peddling the media coverage opinion, but I again remind readers that this is not all that unusual for academics. See my comment above. Nota bene: All academic research ostensibly uncovers something new, otherwise it's not publishable. Respectully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Disproving earlier studies? I've done that in my one published scientific paper, it is commonplace. What I asked was, if the question was so vexing, can you find a paper that says, "this is an important question in bird flight that has not been answered".
It is not so difficult to find sources calling leading scientists such. Look through the review papers that cite their works. Abductive (reasoning) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources say that "These latest data disprove conclusions from numerous earlier studies" and "Previous investigations into the flight of the hummingbird had suggested that" . I think this is clear evidence that there were studies looking at this. I think what is clear is that we are talking at cross purposes. I think Scientific America, the BBC, Nature, The Royal Society, The US National Science Foundation and Associated Press are sufficiently important to establish notability - you don't. We disagree. I am also not sure why you would bring your one paper in and why it might be relevant here. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Do you have some examples of "leading biophysicists" working in the area of Biomechanics that I/we/you should make some pages on instead of indugling in this kind of discussion? Why don't we do that making our encylopedia better. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with that. It does no particular good to the encyclopedia to weed out a few marginally-notable articles. It does do good to remove junk, but this is above that. It would do good to update the older articles; it would do good to write articles on the important people and topics we need. Every time we devote to an A f d like this what is probably 4 or 5 people-hours total, plus the concern and involvement, those hours & involvement could have produced half a dozen articles. If you're looking for biophysicists, I checked one department -- Yale, and found the following full professors (possibly not a complete list): Victor S. Batista, Ronald Breaker, Gary Brudvig, Craig M. Crews, Mark Bender Gerstein, William L. Jorgensen, Anna Marie Pyle, Thomas D. Pollard, Lynne Regan, Alanna Schepartz, Scott Strobel, John Tully, Kurt W. Zilm. We seem to be missing 8 out of 12. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that Henrik's times-viewed tool shows when people look at non-existent articles? For example, Gary Brudvig had 2 view attempts back in May 2009: [4] and none since then. People are not interested in looking up professors; they may want to look up the results of their scholarly endeavors. You are advocating creating BLPs for no reason. Abductive (reasoning) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so – your wording seems to be pretty clear. You're saying that this article should be kept because the subject has 2 Nature publications on what you feel is a "hot topic", are you not? The implication is that the prestige attached to Nature is inherited by a Nature author whereby the latter is now notable. This line of argument is pretty much the same as the "all Nature authors are notable" opinion advanced by RekishiEJ above and it was indeed debunked: the claim has lots of subjective and contradictory consequences (examples above) and violates WP:INHERITED. Very respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (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/Douglas_Warrick&oldid=1137799212"