Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J Taylor

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, default to keep. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J Taylor[edit]

(was an incomplete afd) Notability? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A legal scholar with a large number of good publications for the field.DGG (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone can explain to me why the number of professional publications doesn't establish notability. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely published, warrants at least a stub article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, unless more information to indicate academic notability is provided. Simply having published a good number of research papers is not indicative of academic notability; publishing is a part of the job and that is what academics do. Nothing special about that as such and simply having a good publication record was never considered enough for satisfying WP:PROF in the past. He seems to be a fairly recent PhD since the publications go back only to 2000 and his first academic appointment is 2002. I looked up his web page at Sheffield:[1]. I don't really see anything unusual or particularly distinguished in the data listed there (no particular awards or honors). The most impressive thing there is a big grant he has from the European Commission. That's good but I'd like to see something more definitive, such as academic awards/honors or evidence of substantial citability of his work. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added that page to his article. Did you note that there are two more recent publications listed on that page but not in the article? Not sure what number of additional citations aid notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per NsK92. I put the (excessively, for a WP bio) long list of published papers (once pruned of book reviews etc) from the biography through google scholar. "Problems of practice and principle of[sic, I fixed the typo] centring law reform on the concept of genetic discrimination" and "Durant in the Court of Appeal: identifying a better approach" each cited once, none on the rest. I see no evidence of notable impact here to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (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.