Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George B. Walden

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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Walden[edit]

[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)

I had labeled this as PROD earlier in the week when I had just begun engaging in the deletion process, and it was deprodded yesterday without reason. As such, I am submitting this for AfD which in hindsight might have been a better option given there was more than one source on the article. Nevertheless, this article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

Argument for Non-notability[edit]

Conducting a google search reveals little information beyond what is already on the wikipage, which appears to be accurate. He was head chemist at Eli Lilly in the 1920's and participated in research in insulin. However, there were many scientists involved in its research and he does not appear to be a major player within this. I was not able to find major news coverage during his time or in historical coverage of the era. However, searching for old information is more difficult and I am less experienced on that front, and as such would appreciate others giving a go at looking into this as well.

Essentially, he does receive passing mention regarding his activities as a scientist, is published in some journal articles on the early 20th century and did have some impact, but it does not appear to be significant enough to be considered notable.

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to assess Walden's claim, because Web of Science provides no useful information. However, as a company scientist he was probably unable to publish his observations in the way an academic scientist would have done. A letter available at https://insulin.library.utoronto.ca/islandora/object/insulin%3AL10253 suggests that his contribution was just part of a broader effort at the University of Toronto. I haven't found anything else beyond what is claimed in the Wikipedia article. If the authors of the article can provide better evidence, then OK, but otherwise delete. Athel cb (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Walden was head chemist at Eli Lilly and so was a person of some importance. He has entries in numerous reference works including American Men of Science; Famous Faces in Diabetes; Indiana Scientists: A Biographical Directory; Who's Who in America; Who's Who in Commerce and Industry; &c. That's therefore an easy pass of WP:BASIC. His work on the development of insulin production was a major breakthrough which appears in the many histories of insulin and the Eli Lilly company. This is therefore also a pass of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Those works also explain that his wife, Ida ("Eda") was a significant co-worker too and our article has yet to recognise this. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Note also that neither the creator of the page in question nor any other contributor has been notified about either the prod or this AfD. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have since informed the article creator on the AfD as I have forgotten to do so, my appologies for that. On one hand I appreciate you pointing this out as I have failed to do this for numerous AfD's for a few days now. Still adjusting to the process. I don't agree with the keep assessment, but it is also a fair assessment and others can take it into consideration when they look into this. All that being said, I can't help but read this as anything other than petty (particularly because of the tsk), per a discussion here, and would appreciate not approaching things in that manner. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. Page 171 of the book "Breakthrough: Elizabeth Hughes, the Discovery of Insulin, and the Making of a Medical Miracle" says "George B. Walden was put in charge of the program" for purifying insulin. If you're familiar with the history of insulin, you might agree that insulin purification and production was an extremely important milestone in the history of medicine, science, pharmacology, and humanity. Also Tautomers, this is the second page in a row now where I've seen you trying to delete a page of a notable deceased chemist. Can you perhaps stop bringing these to AfD? Perhaps try the talk page, then WikiProject Chemistry, then talk to some other users about it first? Dr. Universe (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you view WP:Chemistry you'll see I have posed a series of pages for deletion in the last week. I am in the process of learning how this is done and I am not always going to do this correctly. That being said, I do stand by my AfD here and all others I have done. I appreciate your feedback but it is not substantive enough for me to switch my opinion to keep. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing currently in the article isn't good enough to justify a keep, but there is sufficient coverage of his work in scholarly articles. I can't access the Who's Who article mentioned; while that isn't a great source for demonstrating notability it is often useful. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. Improve instead of deleting it. --hroest 20:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mention briefly at Eli Lilly and Company, where he spent most of his career and made his sole(?) claim to fame. I'm seeing mainly brief mentions, not significant covereage. Walden gets frequent brief mentions with respect to isoelectric precipitation of insulin, e.g. "By the spring of 1923, George B. Walden had perfected a method of isoelectric precipitation, which greatly increased the yield of insulin..." in Two Centuries of American Medicine, 1776-1976, and in the already cited article "Insulin: Discovery and Controversy", and sporadic brief mentions in works about Eli Lilly and Company or Eli Lilly himself.[1]. There are a few newspaper/trade journal pieces reporting his retirement from Eli Lilly,[2][3] and some other local newspaper coverage of varying signifiance.[4][5] (articles on marginally notable people often get padded with verifiable but unencyclopedic trivia such as buying/selling houses, attending social events, etc.). Basic biographical information exists in Who's Who in America, 1942 and other similar directories, however these are generally self-reported sources that may be verifiable but don't meet reliability nor independence criteria per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Redirecting preserves page history in case future significant coverage is found, but even full deletion would not disrupt existing articles too much, as all necessary context in any article that mentions him is conveyed in the simple statement that he studied insulin for Eli Lilly; no Wikilinking needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were an article specifically about Eli Lilly and insulin (or even a stand-alone History of Eli Lilly and Company), I might support a merge/redirect. As it is, I don't think the top-level company article is a good target for this type of biography. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:09, 20 July 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.