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 delete. The sense of the discussion was that the subject has not been covered in independent, reliable sources sufficiently to establish his notability. The coverage that was identified has been repudiated by the participants as a whole. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Furth[edit]

John L. Furth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This originally started as a draft and was declined, but an uninvolved editor came in and created the article (so no GAMING). I am, however, not convinced that Furth meets GNG; three of the four references are from either primary or non-RS sources, and the fourth is what appears to be a local charity giving out an award (so mostly not primary?). The only sources I can find online about Furth are directly connected to him or just brief mentions (usually about the endowments he's given).

All in all, a man with money to spend is not inherently notable. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note for closer - I felt it was important to respectfully mention that the editor who filed this AfD made reference to Draft:John L Furth which was submitted by a newbie editor and family member of the subject, Aroger0821. It was his first ever submission and was rejected twice for obvious reasons. The article subject of this AfD is an entirely new article I created about the same subject, John L. Furth, who is unmistakably notable as a philanthropist and business leader who has served as chairman and vice chairman of highly notable investment firms, universities and hospitals. The basis of this AfD is actually a disagreement over some of the sources that were cited which creates an issue weighted more for RS/N than AfD. Thank you in advance for your time in reviewing this filing. Atsme📞📧 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the Draft only because it was relevant to how I came across the Article. I specifically mentioned that you were uninvolved with the original page and created a new one from scratch. I'm not sure how you "respectfully" restating my original nomination makes any difference to how this is closed. If anything, it reads to me like an attempt at discrediting me somehow and/or trying to get a procedural close out of it. As an aside, for someone who has so little time to spend on the subject, you certainly seem to have come up with an awful lot of excuses to post on this AFD. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG says nothing about what a person does, but it requires certain levels of coverage in media to demonstrate notability. I looked for such sources and I was unconvinced, though I am happy to be proven wrong. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP doesn't have to be high profile to be notable - they can be low profile and still be highly notable such as the following:
  • created the John and Hope Furth Professorship of Psychiatric Neuroscience at Yale with a $3 million endowment,
  • created The John L. and Hope L. Furth Endowment for the Smithsonian Libraries in 2005 with an unrestricted fund to enhance educational programs and professional training,my bold 21:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • funded important scientific research which has resulted in numerous recognitions in high quality journals for his contributions including The NY Academy of Sciences wherein it states: S.J. gratefully acknowledges the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. John L. Furth and of Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth S. Hackel, who made this work possible." I consider the funding of scientific research as notable as the research itself.
  • He is a Trustee Emeritus of Barnard College,
  • He is a Trustee and Assistant Treasurer of the Foundation for Child Development,
  • He is a Trustee and former Chairman of Blythedale Children's Hospital,
  • He was awarded The Herbert H. Lehman Award by the American Jewish Committee,
  • He has a highly notable business profile, otherwise he wouldn't be making such notable contributions to science and education.
  • Adding more notability as stub is developed during this AfD 21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC) He was board chairman for E.M. Warburg Pincus & Co. (1970—1999), and held various other leadership positions for affiliates.
I simply don't understand how his notability even comes into question. Everything the man has accomplished is verifiable in high quality sources such as the Smithsonian and Yale University as well as other academic sources. This really is a time sink. Atsme📞📧 19:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia uses a LITERAL definition of notability - I.E. have others outside his circle of influence taken note of him? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I could give money to six of my friends, they could do awesome things with it, but I would not be the notable one. There needs to be coverage about the person to meet GNG. As I said earlier, being generous does not necessarily make a person notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Primefac (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - to consider a professorship named in one's honor not notable or that verifiability of one's accomplishments in a Smithsonian article or Yale article is unreliable tells me we have a serious problem that needs a great deal more attention than this AfD will allow. Yet we consider the academic notable for far less? It doesn't make sense. Being a successful leader in business IS notable according to both GNG and BLP, and Furth meets the requirements. I've provided RS that pass the acid test for verifiability. It doesn't have to be the New York Times, however, there is an article in the New York Post. Self-published sources are also acceptable, particularly for philanthropists and other low-profile notables. So in one breath we're saying you need to cite academic sources, and in another breath we're saying academic sources aren't reliable. Now that's a head-scratcher. ??? Atsme📞📧 21:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't find these RS you're talking about. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article - the stub I'm trying to expand. The RS are there. Also check this out Wikipedia:Do_not_confuse_stub_status_with_non-notability. Atsme📞📧 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
update the article is now start class with almost every sentence sourced to a RS ranging from the New York Post, Smithsonian Libraries, Yale School of Medicine, Irving Daily News (citing & expanding on NYTimes review), company bios, etc. and it is still a work in progress. Atsme📞📧 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflation. 😆 Readers will learn more about the man's notability by reading the article. For example, he is on the Development Board for Yale University and also serves on the Yale Tomorrow Executive Committee for their Capital Fund Campaign, so the article is not just about the $3 million professorship which actually resulted in a 2nd article about a female doctor/scientist/researcher who became the inaugural Furth professor. I can't understand why the delete voters are having issues recognizing Furth's notability but it may be because they're judging a stub instead of giving the article a chance to breathe. The man has achieved great things and his bio belongs in WP, especially considering what all he has done/is doing for education and research. Atsme📞📧 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, this was a draft (declined twice) before it was an article. Voters have as much priority to read the nomination BEFORE !voting as the person making the nomination, as I stated this fact. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, Primefac, don't be a jerk and accuse other people of things that are not true. We have multiple neutral, third-party sources here, and though the article still needs work, it meets WP:GNG. Montanabw(talk) 20:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Montanabw, the draft deserved to be declined.But this is a new BLP that I created from scratch. 21:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC) In fact, I was discussing another topic on the TP of Robert McClenon and saw the post by a relative of Furth. The submission was poorly written which is understandable in some newbie cases but it aroused my curiosity to see who Furth was and if anything could be done that would prove helpful. See my post above with the link to that discussion. Primefac, it would be much appreciated if you would refrain from comparing the new BLP I created to a declined draft submitted by a newbie. It is a totally different submission. Atsme📞📧 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, the Furth BLP being subjected to this RfD wasn't a "newbie submission" - it's an article created from scratch by a veteran editor who carries an WP:Autopatrolled designation. Atsme📞📧 16:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - to what primary sources are you referring as the article being "full of"?
  1. The university of which he is a trustee (primary)
  2. The institution to which he gave money (not independent)
  3. A review of his book, though book reviews don't often impart much onto the author. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
  4. A review for his book (a blog/unreliable)
  5. See #2
  6. See #2
  7. The company he works for (primary/not independent)
  8. A generic Bloomberg listing (not usable for notability)
  9. A reasonable source
  10. See #3
  11. An SEC listing, which I'm pretty sure is primary, and even if not it only verifies facts (i.e. brief mention)
  12. This is from a reliable source, but it's just a generic "he's going from X to Y company" and doesn't actually talk about him in any great detail. Good for verification, not so good for notability.
  13. See #1
  14. Duplicate of #9
  15. Name drop/brief mention, again good for verification but not for notability. Also, pretty sure it's a primary source.
Did I miss anything? Primefac (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you missed the definition of WP:Primary not to mention sources that ARE ALLOWED IN A BLP for low-key notables. Yale is an article published in an ACADEMIC SOURCE and in combination with Smithsonian both are high quality sources. Both have published articles not primary documents as would be an actual lawsuit filed in the court. Perhaps they are not independent, but there acceptable for low-key notables as are self-published sources. Atsme📞📧 19:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You also missed that he's an author in addition to being notable for his work and contributions to major, highly notable institutions like Yale and Smithsonian, not to mention the hospitals. This BLP is clearly a SNOW KEEP or I would not have invested the work in it. I have far better things to do with my time, as I'm sure you do as well. 20:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources can be RS but cannot be used to establish notability. Notability requires multiple significant mentions in independent RS, and that is what is lacking here. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Ca2james, there are multiple sources that are independent of the subject: I went through and tightened up the article and reviewed the source material. There are multiple sources independent of the subject, notably what currently are footnotes 4, 6, 7, 9 and 12. The others have some direct connection to the individual but as such are fine because they verify the data that they source. This is more than adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current version definitely reads better. The sources have to not just be independent of the subject but also give significant mentions. Footnotes 4 and 9 are not significant mentions of him as this person moving to that company isn't a significant mention. 12 is from a blog; even if it wasn't a blog, it's about the book, not the author, who is mentioned only in passing - which is the same problem that 7 and 9 have (from what I can tell as I don't have a newspapers.com account). 7, 9, and 12 indicate that the book is notable but that does not automatically mean that its author is also notable because notability is not WP:INHERITED. Ca2james (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blog about the book cites the NYTimes review. It's a 3rd party source citing a 2nd party source. This really is a time sink and needs to be closed. Atsme📞📧 02:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to stop commenting on this discussion, Atsme (though BLUDGEON comes to mind). As a point of note, I'm pretty sure SNOW closes are for when there is no opposition, and simply saying it should be a snow close does not mean it is a snow close. I'll look through the new sources (probably tomorrow) and re-evaluate my opinion on the matter (who knows, you might actually convince me per WP:HEY). Primefac (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. WP:Snow Close - The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start. It describes this AfD from inception. Atsme📞📧 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not a foregone conclusion; there's arguments on each side. SNOW is thus inappropriate here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His notability has been established in independent sources. The rest is nothing more than an argument about the articles published by the Yale School of Medicine which actually verify the information published in the Smithsonian which verify the Yale articles PLUS there are the following independent sources:
Also see my following comment. Atsme📞📧 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll harken back to my earlier comment with regard to giving my six best friends a ton of money: they will of course tell good things about me to their friends.
It is obvious that Yale and the Smithsonian will include biographies about Furth; he gave them money. This is the crux of everyone's non-independent argument. WP:42 even has "independent" in bold highlights. So yes, we are making the claim that these sources do not demonstrate his notability, specifically because they are not independent of the subject. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
*The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
Furth meets either or both those qualifications as (1) an author, (2) someone whose contributions are widely recognized such as The John L. and Hope L. Furth Endowment, Smithsonian Libraries, and The John and Hope Furth Professorship of Psychiatric Neuroscience, Yale School of Medicine, and (3) recipient of the Herbert H. Lehman Award, not to mention his notability as a business leader as described in the article. Atsme📞📧 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being an author of books published 40 years ago and not mentioned since then is not "[making] a widely recognized contributiuon that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". If he *was* notable as an author, then WP:AUTHOR would apply, but none of the sources listed above indicate that he meets any of the four notability criteria. Even if endowments qualified as part of an enduring historical record (which, at $3M, they don't), there are no independent sources discussing those endowments as has been shown above. It isn't enough that he's given money to people or whatever; independent sources need to be making significant mentions of him giving money to people or whatever. Furth might be noted in the real world but he is not notable on Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the writing is promotional and in some aspects questionable: The The Herbert H. Lehman Award is linked, implying it is a notable award. It is not necessarily--there is no actual article on it, the link goes to Herbert A Lehman, and the article on him doesn't even mention the existence of the award in his honor. A statement he made when he was given an award is quoted in support of his cause, as is astatment of hisaboutthe importance of the smithsonian Library. Neither of these is remotely encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG I started that TP discussion with you for one purpose only - to help me understand some issues I found puzzling. It was certainly not intended to bring you to this AfD which is why I did not mention a specific subject and attempted to keep my questions general. You basically assumed that this was the article in question, and while some of my questions may be related it actually had as much to do with several Notability RfCs as it has to do with this article. While I agree with you on some aspects of it, I disagree in others, specifically about the amount of money necessary to make someone "notable". I firmly believe - and with good reason - that the purpose of one's philanthropy is far more important and notable than the amount of it, especially with regards to determining one's notability. The worthiness and purpose of an endowment is far more important than the amount of money that created it, and the former is what editors should glean from the content of cited sources along with the number of cited sources, not the WORTH of the philanthropy, endowment or the subject's financial worth. To put a dollar amount on notable contributions is absurb, and diminishes the worth of the professorship and other endowments that serve humanity. Atsme📞📧 17:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still none of this suggests the needed confident substance for his own notability, examining this myself found nothing actually convincing, there's no inherited notability from those other groups and financial activities. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you already !voted above ST? Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - a Furth professorship awarded by Yale School of Medicine is academic in nature and also notable. I fail to see how the notable act of humanity that established the Furth professorship is promotional, but then I've had similar discussions with the same 3 editors who have tried to get my work deleted in the past for similar reasons. At least there's consistency in their showing up where I'm involved. Perhaps it's a show of Wikilove...at least that's what I'd like to think. Atsme📞📧 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Professorship and its holders will be notable. Just providing the money for the position is not, any more than the development officer who (presumably) coordinated the gift or the attorney who prepared the documents.
It is true I have commented adversely on a number of this editor's articles. My current activity at WP is primarily removing promotional articles, and it is therefore inevitable that I will argue for the deletion of the articles of those who write them. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for your admission, DGG but based on your perspective of "promotional" your argument rests on an editor's determination of a financial amount rather than the notability of the deed which is determined by cited sources. Editors should not be burdened with assessing notability based on monetary values attached to endowments that earn honorary titles because there are instances when notable people and institutions don't want those amounts disclosed. You stated above that "I do not think that giving money to charities is notable, unless the amount is very large,". I find that very concerning because it conflicts with our PAGs. Editors should not judge notability on monetary worth - it should be determined by the weight given to it in the cited RS. Atsme📞📧 01:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about the weight given to the cited RS, but (as mentioned ad nauseam) most of those sources you give are not independent; if I gave the Smithsonian $3m tomorrow, they would probably put up a bio about me as well; it does not make me a notable individual. Now if Forbes or the NYT wrote a piece about Furth and said "look at all this money he's giving to people" we'd be having a completely different discussion. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note I was unable to find any information about his actual wealth,and the one relevant comment I could find is that one of his gifts was listed as over $1 million, but not a leadership gift where their criterion for Leadership gifts seems to be $20 million. I was hoping to find something that would justify notability . a person can be notable because of standing in the highest rank of whatever it is they are important for, and one of those possibilities is wealth. In philanthropy, which tends to be correlated, it is the amount given in terms of the standards of the time. But this is how I judge notability in this respect, not how I judge promotionalism . Emphasizing minor matters of any sort is part of the basis for concluding its promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, there was one over $3 million, another that was unrestricted, and there are a substantial amount of others he contributes to on a regular basis. I thank you for your efforts but philanthropy regarding this BLP should not be judged only on "recentism" as Furth has been involved in philanthropy for over 40 years. It would be wrong to discount the many years he has been actively involved contributing large sums of money and donating substantial amounts of his time to further humanity, research & education. Long standing philanthropy should not be determined by the monetary values we see today as you suggested because the monetary worth of a gift given in the 1950s-1960s would not have the same value or significance as that same amount would have today. In 1970, $1 million would be worth over $6 million today. His philanthropic notability should be measured over time which is verifiable in RS, and further verified by reports in primary sources which are acceptable for such use. I have not totaled his monetary contributions over the past 40 years because I considered his notability was on the line of "the sky is blue" so when I created the stub, I cited his most recent activity, not his life's contributions as a philanthropist. Low key notability also applies in this case because of the nature of philanthropy. As I already mentioned, his notability is long term, and should not be measured on the monetary value of a single gift but on the gifts he has given long term and the substance of his humanitarian deeds as verified in RS. I don't see Furth's philanthropy as "promotion" rather I see his notability as a lifetime of low-key gifts to further humanity which is verifiable in the RS I cited; therefore, the very nature of his philanthropy is contrary to your claim of "promotional". Also, considering this AfD was initiated within a day or two of publishing, it is highly discouraging for any editor to want to work to expand it because these AfDs are time sinks and completely dependent on the closing admin. I can only hope and maintain faith that in this case, the closing admin will carefully consider the weight of the arguments and not make a determination based on the number of !votes. Keeping this BLP and allowing me an opportunity to expand it will not break the Wiki. Atsme📞📧 04:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 2009, he was one of a handful of $1 million to $4,999,999.00 donors to Blythedale Childrens Hospital Journey of Hope Society as verified on page 8 here which documents just one of his many philanthropic donations to humanity, particularly children. 04:45, 16 July 2016 (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.
More