Talk:Frank L. Douglas

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frank L. Douglas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070326074227/http://web.mit.edu:80/cbi/people/Douglas_bio.html to http://web.mit.edu/cbi/people/Douglas_bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I think that Douglas is weakly notable under WP:NPROF C1, for several highly cited papers. Additionally, his resignation from MIT some years ago got a fair bit of coverage at the time [1] [2] [3] [4]. The interview in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery helps support. This would be pretty weak for GNG, but together with the NPROF case, I think there's a solid case for keeping the article. Pinging PRODer @Ohnoitsjamie: I'll try to do some reworking of the article over the next few days. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

While I frequently take my disputed prods to AfD, I think the additional sources you found probably gives the subject just enough coverage to squeak by. While looking for the original GQ source, came across this, which is an OK source with good coverage. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the recent edits; overall, the article looks much better, especially the refactored/pruned awards section (lengthy and exhaustive "awards" sections are one of the most obvious COI flags). Glancing at the references section, it's still a bit weighted toward primary sources (CVs, institutional bio pages); two of the third-party reliable sources are about the same event (MIT resignation). The Akron Life source mentioned above could help, though it could also be argued that it's "local coverage" (a profile in a community newspaper usually isn't enough by itself for WP:BIO). If it went to AfD now it could go either way. Personally I think it's borderline enough that I wouldn't send it to AfD. If someone else did, I'd likely !vote "weak keep" at this point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, thanks for commenting! I have a fair bit of confidence that any AfD discussion would end in a keep. I'm mainly looking to improve the article. I did shore up the sourcing a little more: I think that it's mainly weak on the middle of his career now (say, Xerox through Aventis). There appears quite a bit more available on the WSJ about his role at Aventis, if someone with a subscription comes by here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)