Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Mark Noe

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. causa sui (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Mark Noe

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

I'm questioning the notability of the topic. I appreciate that he taught at Harvard Medical School, but look at http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=faculty; the faculty at Harvard Medical School numbers over 11,000, and full-time faculty alone accounts for 8,259. I also appreciate that he was editor of several journals, but again there are thousands of journal editors. I don't see how these achievements alone make the subject worthy of an encyclopedia article.

The only statement I see here as making the subject notable is the fact that he "founded one of the nation's first burn units and argon laser programs." Unfortunately, this fact is not supported by the single reference provided. Further, searches of Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Bing News and Bing books don't turn up any sources which can be used to support the claim either. You can even try searching the website of Beth Israel where he supposedly founded the burn unit and no results are turned up.

The first line of the article also refers to Noe as a "pioneering plastic surgeon". The article then describes an argon laser technique he used to remove birthmarks. Pioneering would suggest that Dr Noe made significant advances in his field. But the article at http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ovAcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ymcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6403,1957398&dq=joel mark noe&hl=en credits a Doctor Leon Goldman as having developed the argon laser techinque which is described in the article; Noe simply used it. Perhaps Noe refined this technique to the point where it was usable but this news article does not explicitly say this. It is clear from the news article that the technique was an important development in plastic surgery but if Noe is notable enough to have an article simply for using the new technique then I think Leon Goldman deserves an article for developing the technique. But Leon Goldman doesn't have an article.

Perhaps Noe made significant advances in other ways. A Google Scholar search does yield numerous articles which he cowrote. But again, there are thousands and thousands of medical articles written every year and not every single article represents a significant advance in medicine. Does one of these articles truly represent something which has transformed plastic surgery? There needs to be evidence that this is the case.

Even if the article was notable, I'm thrown by the single reference, which is written about a "Howard Noe" - the article is about a "Joel Mark Noe." Furthermore, large portions of the article are lifted word-for-word from an obituary which appeared in the Boston Globe in 1991 found here: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/59267554.html?FMT=ABS&date=Sep 15, 1991. Is this reprinted with permission? Is the author of the obituary the author of this article?

I would suggest rewriting the article so it does not plagiarize the Boston Globe and includes significant sources but even with a rewrite, I still firmly believe the subject is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Sssss snake (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)— Sssss snake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching GS with "J Noe", I find eight articles with over 100 citations; enough to satisfy WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure but two of those are written by a "JD Noe" and one by a "Roger Noe"... I mean yeah he wrote some articles cited by 100 others but how many people in the world have written articles cited by 100 people who don't have Wikipedia articles about them? 139.140.214.138 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — 139.140.214.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I ignored those ones and counted only those by the subject. If you think I made a mistake let us know what you get. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

My final count is 6. I'm not trying to be picky, I'm sure it doesn't make any difference whether he wrote 6 articles cited by 100 or 8. Either way I wasn't sure whether this is a significant contribution to the scientific community. But you know better than I do I'm sure - is having more than 5 articles cited by 100 relatively rare? 139.140.214.138 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty rare (certainly above average, which is the test), depending on the field of study, and although I have not counted the rest of them to get an h-index I would feel that this gives a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Noe JM" gets 50 hits in Web of Science, with a total of 1027 citations and an h-index of 15. While perhaps a tad at the low side for this high-citation field, this is explained by the fact that he stopped publishing in 1989 (older articles get cited less and the number of citations to new papers is growing every year -in part because of the growth of the scientific literature: more articles being published, so more citations to go around). Meet WP:PROF#C1. --Crusio (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no referenced statement indicating a major impact in any field. The number of published articles is not a valid argument, as this doesn't reflect impact in the field in any way. Publishing research is a normal part of a professor's job, not a sign of notability. His work was probably laudable, and it is tragic that he died so young, but there is no indication anywhere that he had any significant impact. The only articles with 100 citations are from the early 80s. If the work was really that groundbreaking, I would have expected a few thousand citations for the highest-cited article at least, especially in a huge field like port wine stains. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion to Keep, taking account of this source (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lsm.1900120317/pdf) which corroborates that he founded the Beth Israel burn unit. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr Noe passed away before the advent of the public internet, so his is rarely mentioned, discussed, or cited, and therefore his online presence should not be a factor. As a member of the reconstructive surgery community, I can vouch for the well-accepted fact that Dr Noe was a major player, and his work is still VERY influential. Physicians who are training to become plastic surgeons will certainly come across Dr Noe's methods, and his contemporaries still speak very highly of him and his work, and I can say that as someone who works in the field but was too young to work directly with him, I was excited to find this page and learn more about the man. Please keep this article, and assist its authors in making it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.52.134 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on several criteria: editor of major journal in his subject, full professor at a leading medical school, founder of a major unit at their main hospital, originator of a subject. Needs expansion. Publishing research is a part of a professors job, and those who are particularly good at it are notable . Playing music is a musician's job, and we don't rule out notability for musicians based on their music; obviously a musician is unlikely to become notable except for their music. A researcher is unlikely to become notable for anything except doing research and publishing papers. In previous discussions, we've usually held that any researcher in any subject with papers with over 100 citations is notable; asking for thousands, is the equivalent of famous-- which would make us a very much abridged encyclopedia . I cannot find any article on port wine stains that has more than 300 references in Google Scholar, so asking for "thousands" in a field like this is more than just famous, it eliminates the possibility of anyone being notable for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, asking for 1000's was a bit over the top, but only asking for 100 is a bit on the low side, as this would include a large number of postdocs as well, not to mention almost anyone who has their name on a genome sequence from a few years ago. Either way, there is no evidence that the subject was 'particularly good at' publishing papers; he seems to have been average. Maybe Dr Noe was a notable full Harvard professor, founded a major unit, and originated a subject. I at least could find no evidence of these things. The only link to Harvard I could find is that he was an assistant professor there. If he founded a burn unit, I can't find any evidence for it. It is also unclear which subject he has originated. If someone could find reliable sources that corroborate any of the claims I would be happy to change my opinion, ~~but at the moment I agree with the nominator.~~ Also, who is Howard Noe? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Howard Noe was Dr Joel Noe's distant cousin, and was accidentally listed on Dr Noe's obituary in Boston Globe the day after his death (confirmed by Boston Globe assistant editors, corrected 9/16/91). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.52.134 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found that really confusing. Can you correct the link in the article? 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2011 (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.