Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard McLeod

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard McLeod

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical promotional article, ref-bombed, yet lacking good secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Alas, I have no expertise in the subject area so will have to defer to others with regard to WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:NPROF#C1 with this citation record. He is a fellow of a number of organization, which may count for criteria #3, but I did not assess as this is a clear pass on citations.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You see that "held a Fred Eshelman Endowed Chair" in the article as nominated? That means he passes WP:PROF#C5. If you're not willing to read or understand the relevant notability guideline you should not be creating deletion nominations in the subjects it covers. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very sorry, David Eppstein, but sometimes it is not so easy to sort the wheat from the chaff when an article has a deal of puffery. And is this really an endowed chair? The cited source, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy has "McLeod is a Fred Eshelman Distinguished Professor", from which one infers that there are multiple such professorships in the Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Are all chairs there endowed? How is one to know? Edwardx (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: per [1] he was "appointed the Fred Eshelman Distinguished Professor" at UNC, this passes NPROF#5 as distinguished professors pass. Like you, I also managed to miss the distinguished professor/chair in a first reading the article in the midst of the promotional text, however McLeod also ticks other NPROF boxes that are easily checked (e.g. the citation record) - so I did not check other criteria too much after satisfying the first. There is also some in depth media coverage (e.g. [2][3] is recent in depth coverage of a funding scandal). The article does need work on reducing puffery and including the 2020 coverage, the creation at the beginning of 2021 omitting this raises some questions - but in terms of AfD it is a pretty clear keep.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eostrix Thank you. I am in no way disputing that it is a clear keep on either C1 or C5, merely trying to explain that nominating this for AfD was not wholly unreasonable. I seem to spend more and more of my limited wiki time dealing with promotional content, and not enough creating new content, so one is bound to be too hasty once in a while. And omitting the funding scandal is another indicator of the possibility of COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF C1 and C3 (at least). It wasn't immediately clear to me when nominated that the McLeod in the article matched the McCleod with the high citations, and given the other signs of promotionalism, I don't think it was unreasonable to run by AfD. (But it sounds like we all agree now that it's a better candidate for cleanup than for deletion.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to a large number of citations.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2021 (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.