Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Rawlins

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 The result was no consensus. This is a borderline case for notability when you refer to WP:BIO. The subject of the article might not have multiple, non-trivial independent sources to justify it's inclusion; a lot of his published work is available over Google Scholar search; and the article needs expansion and not deletion. There is a proposed guideline on the subject of academicians which sums up good reasons why academicians should be included as subjects in the encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Rawlins

I pull up 7 hits when I Pubmed search this guy. Does not seem very notable and does not meet WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, on further investigation, I now believe this article should be kept. This person's publications appear under "Rawlins JN", and not "Rawlins N", as would be expected from his name, Nick Rawlins. The fact that I could not retrieve his list of publications using "Rawlins N" lead me to nominate his page for deletion. However, he does have quite a few publications, as I subsequently found out, and they are fairly well cited, so his article should be kept. Mnemopis 07:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Edeans 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professors generally are notable, somewhat. mrholybrain 's talk 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete appears non-notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Inkpaduta 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a professor at Oxford is not notable? Hmmm... I doubt it! Mathmo ^Talk 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oxford professor w/ at least 14 publications ... I think "keep and tag for expansion" would be reasonable solution. -- Black Falcon 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professors at Oxford are indeed notable, because only a small proprtion of academics/College fellows are Professors. --Bduke 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oxford professor? Of course he's notable. Could use a bit of expansion, though. Lankiveil 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Although this is a good article it fails WP:BIO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked WP:BIO and could not find where it said being a "Oxford professor" met WP:N, this article also fails WP:V as it has no references. So we have an unverified article about someone claiming to be and oxford professor, the "external link" is not even to an Oxford page it is to Oxion (<notice red link) at http://oxion.physiol.ox.ac.uk/oxion.php Delete the article. Jeepday 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OXION stands for Oxford Ion Channel Initiative. Rawlins is (or was) a professor at Oxford: see [1], [2], [3]. Zagalejo 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this the same person as JN Rawlins? Zagalejo 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's John Rawlins. Mnemopis 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that, or are you just reading the automated search suggestion? Zagalejo 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was just reading the search suggestion. I did some more digging and 'Rawlins JN' is Nick Rawlins. The problem is that there seem to be multiple people in Pubmed with the name 'Rawlins JN' so it's hard to dissect out this guys actual publications. However, he is a prof at Oxford. His page is here. Mnemopis 23:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok we seem to have validated with primary sources only that the subject of this article is a Professor at Oxford, but in spite of all the keep votes no one has shown how he meets WP:N being a professor is not a notability criteria any place that I can find any Wikipedia policy. Per WP:V If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jeepday 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ok, I've changed my mind. This guy's article should be kept, but the article should include some of his publications and significant findings. Mnemopis 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some publication info to his page. I started this deletion request. Is there a way for me to terminate it? Mnemopis 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. If there had been no delete votes you could have done a speedy keep close because you withdraw the nomination. But because there have been a few delete votes you won't be able to close it yourself. I suggest putting your note right underneath your nomination. That way future editors to this AfD will be aware of how you have changed your mind that you now believe this article should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 06:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable personSlideAndSlip 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is notable as one of the very few professors at Oxford, as well as many well cited publications. RFerreira 07:56, 16 February 2007 (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.