Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D.

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. m.o.p 06:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D.

Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Seems to be sourced from one or two closely connected sources - no significant claims to notability for the individual, just a biography of a man and his family. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I would disagree with the characterization that there is no significant claims to notability. He is identified as having been the associate dean of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and contributed to journals on surgery. This can be confirmed as this is one of his contributions which would seem in to indicate that in addition to the general notability criteria, he should also be evaluated as an academic. At this point, I neutral. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – my gut says keep, but I haven't gathered enough data for a firm answer. Additional published works as author and illustrator suggest that he will meet standards.Novangelis (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in the article indicates notability. "Associate dean" is not an inherently notable position. He wrote journal articles, but they are not heavily cited per Google Scholar (even granting him credit for the fact that he wrote a long time ago). Being president of a hospital does not convey notability. Half the article is about his relatives, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I could find nothing at Google or Google Books to add to his notability. The only independent references cited at the article are about the family home, not about Dr. van Beuren.--MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This is a stub to which more detail and references will be posted. van Beuren is a recognized historical figure and family from the early history of Manhattan and the adjacent territories (from Dutch colonial times, before the revolution, and afterward) through today. He was from a line of physicians that began in the Netherlands and continued through Dutch colonization to contemporary times. Their history alone is of note (MISS VAN BEUREN DIES IH HER OLD CITY HOME; Her Mansion in Elizabeth Spingler Van Beuren ! :ed:f atheer . fl : oldest Dutch families of Manhattan and ;was the daughter of the late Michael M. Van Beuren and his wife [1]). Additionally, he was a widely published researcher, academician, administrator, and practicing surgeon who held offices at medical schools, hospitals, and institutions in three different states at the same time, not sequentially. Few physicians hold such wide-ranging accreditation, be it historical or contemporary. He assisted in the development of national and local public health guidelines and procedures for unified response to emergency planning during disasters and periods of special needs such as wartime conditions. Many of the references are in sources that require membership such as many medical journals, AAAS (Science), JSTOR, and such which are futile for active links to provide readers, so I am pursuing other sources. The numerous links provided in the article will be converted into references as time allows. One of his sons collaborated with Thomas A. Edison and invented electronic devices essential to space exploration, being used by NASA; the other collaborated with Joseph Albers (et al) of the Bauhaus who fled Germany during the Nazi period and some of whom established a "colony" in Mexico that received international recognition (Christies lists furniture he designed for auction with the following among the notes, In the 1930s and '40s, with artists such as Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, Frieda Kahlo and Clara Porset in residence, Mexico was a vibrant avant-garde artistic center. In addition to these local artists a number of faculty and students of the Bauhaus school, exiles from the war in Europe, chose to reside in Mexico City. Among the relocated bauhauslers, in addition to former director Hannes Meyer and his wife Lena and faculty Josef Albers and his wife Anni were van Beuren and Grabe." [www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5085714] [2]) These details will be expanded upon and referenced also. The subject of the article lived in historic buildings that, although notable as mansions, were more notable for the family history that contributed significantly to designation, therefore the history of the family and their role in the development of Manhattan and other cities contributes to his significance. As with most members of his family, his obituary was published in the New York Times as a newsworthy obituary, which is reserved for people the paper considers notable, all others pay heavily for inclusion by the paper. Throughout their lives, the family weddings, births, and professional or social activities were the subject of articles in the paper as well. As recommended in the notice I received, I shall continue working on expansion of the stub as this discussion proceeds. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm... stub? This is no "stub," it's nearly 10,000 bytes long! I admire your commitment to the subject and I hope you are able to demonstrate his notability in the article. But you won't do it with the kind of argument you are advancing here. His ancestors and his sons do not contribute to his personal notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED, and neither does the house he lived in. I recommend you focus on his medical achievements, his obit in the NYT, any recognition he received, etc.; information about his own life and career is what we need in order to keep this article. --MelanieN (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe his professional achievements make van Beuren notable enough for an article and consider someone who achieved what he did (concurrently) in his professional life as a reasonable candidate for a WP article. Surely, there is nothing wrong with including personal information in such an article. The fact that he comes from a family of historical importance that includes others of note, even in other generations, provides related information to our readers and enriches their understanding of the history of other times. It seems to me that you are implying that his personal information should be excluded—contrary to typical articles, where few are devoid of personal data._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal information is appropriate for an article. However, excessive material about the accomplishments of his family members unbalances the article. It is after all about him and not his family. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

83d40m, you are welcome to include anything you want in an article as long as it is relevant and sourced. But I was not talking about the article; I was talking about this discussion, and I was trying to explain what kind of input will result in a decision to "keep" as you evidently want. The consensus developed at this discussion will determine whether the article is kept or deleted, and that consensus will require actual EVIDENCE that he is notable AS AN INDIVIDUAL - maybe notable within his profession, or notable as a person within his own time frame. See WP:N for an explanation of notability. It doesn't really help for you to merely assert that he is notable. It needs evidence, in the form of citations from independent, reliable sources. This can include news articles, substantial information ABOUT him (not by him) in books or journals, prizes or awards, public recognition, etc. I am totally open to the notion that he may be notable, and if I see sufficient evidence I will change my opinion to "keep" - but at this point I just don't see the evidence. As for the fact that he is from a notable family, as you keep pointing out, that doesn't do a thing make him notable as an individual. Per Wikipedia policy, notability is not "inherited", such as by being related to other notable people. Here's a recent example of that policy in action: just last week an article about John F. Kennedy's grandson was deleted, because the consensus was that the young man is not notable as an individual. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. His family is not germane to his professional status, as I noted previously, and your "Kennedy" example seems the reverse of the situation under debate. If I were not convinced of the value of this biographical information for readers interested in the history of medicine and clinical research, I certainly would never have spent the time creating the article, nor would I spend time debating its value. Please look at this sampling of established biographical articles under "B" for comparison regarding accomplishments, Derek Benz, Walter Benz, and explain why, in comparison, van Beuren's accomplishments fail to qualify for an article. I am sure that there are _many_ other examples I could choose for comparison that have much less information and much less gravity. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Science (journal) thought him of significant note that they published an obituary. There is an assertion that there is also an NY Times obit. Given the amount coverage in the society pages that can be found in the Google News archives, that seems plausible. The NY Times will, of course, still need to be referenced but that would take an editor a trip to a library to dig in offline archives as I was unable to turn one up int he Google online archives. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the NYT obituary appears in search results (there are multiple listings for his obituary in their archives - one might have been initial or among the alphabetical postings, and a full article following that), a fee is required to gain access or obtain a copy of that page from the archives of the paper -- so it is not visible to readers via a link. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Does a collection of almost notable things add up to notable? In this case, I have to say no. He was interesting, but interesting does not equate with notable. Being listed in "Recent Deaths" (a section under obituary) in Science does not establish notability; most likely, it establishes AAAS membership. Similarly, the only New York Times obituary I can find is the paid announcement by the New York Surgical Society. Even if there was an unpaid obituary, someone from the New York area and New York social scene getting an obituary in the New York Times is not automatically notable. The Chicago Tribune would be. As I read up, I saw a series of solid careers, and found him to be interesting in the context of early 20th century surgery developments. The problem is that no one has put him in that context; he has not been so noted and it is not the job for Wikipedia.Novangelis (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There are three listings for his obituary in the NYT archives. The first is labeled "Special to The Times" and is riddled with typos (making searching for it difficult), it was sent by a newspaper in New Jersey to the New York Times for national coverage. It reads, Head for 10 Years of Memoria ...

March 13 -- Dr. Frederick T. Van Beuren Jr., president of the/Morristown Memorial Hospital here since 1933, ...March 14, 1943

DR.F.T.NANBEUREH i 0F 0RRIS.T0N, 67; x Head for 10 Years of Memoria! Hospital Where He Died Physician Since 1902 EX-0FFICIAL AT COLUMBIA He Served as Associate Dean of College of Physicians and Surgeons There, 1921-34

special to THE N-W* YOK TES. ();

March 14, 1943, , Section , Page 26, Column , words

[3]

I am searching their archives for the others, that is tedious and is taking a great deal of time. A paid obituary (or was it a submitted obituary?) by the New York Surgical Society in the New York Times may be the third reference I saw and I know that they did not pay for, nor submit (if that is the case), obituaries for all of their fellows. Neither does the Association for the Advancement of Science publish the deaths of members, per se, although having qualified for publication in the scientific journal because of the caliber of one's research might have established a criterion for an obituary (both being an indication of notability) -- so I find those suggestions rather weak. [4] is a record of his obituary published by Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, with whom he had no affiliation -- if van Beuren were not recognized as notable in his profession, Johns Hopkins never would have published an obituary for him in their journal, nor would any of the many others which did. I would suggest that when evaluating the notability of a physician, surgeon, and clinical researcher, that scientific and medical journals would be the preferred sources for determining notability and deriving the authoritative opinions that might be reiterated by lay publications. His "careers" were not in a series, he held numerous professional and academic positions at the same time during his career and excelled at them. Many of the references cited regarding van Beuren are derived from records maintained at the national archives for medicine, located at NIH in Washington, D.C. (look closely at the urls in links), another indication of notability. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG and the obituaries in the New York Times (which I see no evidence of being paid) and in the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. But the present article is a disaster of bad organization, bad writing, bad sourcing, and unimportant trivia that needs major cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be interested to see the obit from Johns Hopkins Hospital mentioned by 83d40m - that would go a long way toward demonstrating notability -but the link provided is dead. Google News Archive provides pages and pages of mentions, almost all of them from the 1920s-1930s society pages, along the lines of "Miss So-and-so, granddaughter of Dr. and Mrs. Frederick T. van Beuren Jr., is engaged" or "Mrs. Frederick T. van Beuren Jr. was one of the attendees at a tea party". Does not yet add up to his notability IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be substantial grey areas left here, I've relisted this in order to give more time for some of these issues to be resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The article, although well-sourced, does not assert notability of this person. Just having a successful career, a nice family life, a beautiful and unusual home, and the respect of his peers does not make for notability. (Although was probably better for him.) The article gives the false impression of him having more importance that he really has. Anyone in the upper levels of society in a leading area like New York State is going to be well-documented, still there is nothing to say but a career, a family, a home, and some civic activities. Nothing more than would be expected. Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Well-documented in secondary sources independent of the subject. The obituaries, the various news reports, etc - passes WP:GNG. I mean, for heaven's sake, the guy was one of the most prominent doctors in the state of New York, which was not exactly a backwater in the 1920s. Ray^Talk 14:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The subject was a physician holding many offices at many organizations and institutions in three states at the same time during the early through mid-1900s, was a reaearcher who was well published in professional journals, was invited to present papers on the topics he researched and surgical procedures he developed at medical conventions and gatherings of physicians and surgeons, who perfromed many public services, was honored by his own alma mater (one of the most selective medical schools in the U.S.) by being given several administrative offices and being placed on the teaching staff, and whose obituary was published in the New York Times and many medical journals, professional organizations, and scientific publications. Although he was not responsible for being born into an interesting, historical, and wealthy family (which would not have provided notability in and of itself), why would that diminish his accomplishments? Seems he could have lived a pleasant life of ease without all the contributions to medicine and public health. Finally, why wouldn't recognition of his social status and historical homes be worthy of mention in his biographical information? I believe it adds an interesting insight into the man, his contemporary society, and his times. The article also arouses interest about the medical institutions of the day -- I followed several links to find out details that were very informative. Gfbbloc (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)— Gfbbloc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep A full obit in Science is proof of notability. So is the editorial obit in the NYT. Each by itself would be sufficient. I therefore think it's very clearly notable. I have however removed some of the irrelevant material about other members of the family DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::I was asked if I had actually seen the obit, and was sure it was a full obit. I have seen it, and it is. It is 1375 words long, and extends from the bottom of p. 254, occupies all of p.255 and the first half of p.256. Among other things it says that his textbook, which ran to 7 editions "has been an important factor in the development of neuroanatomy in a superior fashion in the United States", thus explicitly meeting one of the criteria of WP:PROF, and that "The volume of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, "The Hypothalamus and Central Levels of Autonomic Function" (1940), was dedicated to him." , thus explicitly fulfilling another. It also says " a member of the National Academy of Sciences," which fulfills yet a third, and is accepted here as unquestionable proof of notability. If anyone cares to check, it's on JSTOR at [5]. I can email a copy. I suggest incorporating the quotes into the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Note:The JSTOR link is to the obituary for Stephen Walter Ranson, not the subject of this article.Novangelis (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Sufficient documentation exists to demonstrate notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Oops: sorry there. I thought I had not switched my position, when I had upthread. So self-striking my vote, and I shall self-slap with a WP:TROUT. Note that the issue with the JSTOR link still needs some resolution. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I have it right this time.:The correct JSOTR link is [6]. The full contents of the material is "THE death at the age of sixty-seven years is announced

of Dr. Frederick T. Van Beuren, Jr., president of the Morristown, N. J., Memorial Hospital since 1933. From 1921 to 1934 he served as associate dean of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University." Obviously not a full obit, but that Nature should cover it at all is significant. That weekly issue has 5 such notices, along with 2 full obits. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (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.