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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Taylor

Not a notable professor. ERK^{talk • contribs} 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is not possible notability, the problem is lack of independent sources and lack of depth. Neither Get Cited nor University of Sheffield are independent. Get Cited is essential worthless because of little information, and it is member-controlled. One colleague tells me that all law professors and bishops are inherently notable, but I believe that they still need to meet the basics: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. All professors have to publish ("or perish" as they like to say), so the publication list isn't of note. --Bobak (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability in the profession depends on how much they publish, and how much it gets cited. It's the ones who publish a noteworthy amount who get promoted and, very often, become notable. In this case, there is not really a very large amount of truly peer-reviewed publication, but I have not yet checked for citations. And, we always regard the official university web site as sufficient for establishing routine facts; the requirement for third party material is met by the publications & the peer-review. DGG (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of New Genetics and Society these do not appear to be peer-reviewed publications, and despite DGG's suggestion it isn't about publication, its about standing in the field which generally merits not just citation, but comment, e.g. "John X's organization of foo has provided the basis for ..." or "The court relied in its decision on the arguments presented in ...". --Bejnar (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I originally created this article, my first one I think, I was under the impression that anybody could be included in Wikipedia. Dr Taylor is has been quoted in a number of articles that I have read but these have been articles written by present or former colleagues at Sheffield. So, delete, unfortunately. (Quentin X (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Maybe in the future, but not yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (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.