Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J Rankin

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. Sandstein 08:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J Rankin

[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 cannot find evidence that this article meets the criteria of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NPROF. A Google search for his name and variants does not bring up significant discussion of the individual in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 19:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his works are shown to exist yes, but merely publishing is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked Google Scholar and his published works don't seem to meet WP:NPROF. There's no evidence he meets the GNG either. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I looked through the Professor Test, he has published noteworthy work. He does fulfill most elements. Because its South Australia, and its laid back culture has not publicised his works compared to other universities. I propose not to delete with accordance to WP:NPROF. GoddessV (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some examples of his journal articles that were cited by others? I have been unable to find a single journal article he's even published, let alone one that's been cited. Also, WP:NPROF doesn't provide dumbed-down standards of inherent notability for South Australians due to their supposed lower levels of productivity (i.e. "laid back culture"). South Australian law professors are evaluated to the same standard as Dutch and Japanese law professors. Chetsford (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FlinLawJl/2011/6.pdf

Recent developments in Australian abortion law: Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory Rankin, Mark James 2010-07-27T06:58:40

Legal ethics in the negotiation environment: A synopsis Flinders Law Journal Volume 18 Issue 1 (Jul 2016) Rankin, Mark J GoddessV (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the below from WP:NPROF ‘Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality’’ As per the guidelines, individual does not need to follow all criteria. Furthermore there are exceptions. GoddessV (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of bookkeeping, can you please strike one of your two !votes? Also, as per my previous question, can you please provide the volume of citations for these two articles? Your rationale for Keep was that he has "published noteworthy work". You've only evidenced he's published work, not that he's published noteworthy work. "Exceptions" do not cover self-assertion of noteworthiness (see WP:OR). Also, please take care to sign your comments. Chetsford (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2001/10.pdf

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2013/1.pdf

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2003/15.pdf

Citation

Rankin, Mark J. Legal ethics in the negotiation environment: A synopsis [online]. Flinders Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, Jul 2016: 77-120.

Mark J Rankin, 'The Offence of Child Destruction: Issues for Medical Abortion' (2013) 35 Sydney Law Review 1.

GoddessV (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the test to determine noteworthiness? Would be great if you could explain it futher, please. Thank you. The area in which the author is writing about Abortion Law is crucial to the development of society. It is in this aspect I am making a submission that the author's credibility and content of his works can be considered noteworthy within Australian standards. I hope you will be able to give some advice on this. Thank you and please. GoddessV (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to User:Chetsford

Others who cited his works: http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/35-1-12.pdf https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20Law.pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.590.8687&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/journals/law-review/issues/37-1/alr-37-1-ch03-heath-mulligan.pdf http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableoffice/tabledpapers/2016/5516t1337.pdf https://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago672752.pdf https://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/01-PRINGLE-ABORTION-FINAL.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b9e7/3cde35dee42c766dc04b018bd2008a09fc2e.pdf GoddessV (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the general test for notability is whether there has been significant discussion of the individual or his research. His research might be timely and important from a social point of view, but that is not relevant to a notability discussion here. Yes it's been cited by others, but that's true of all professors. Notability means that others have noted his work, or himself, and not just cited as a matter of course. I've been cited too but nobody has written anything about me (in reliable sources anyway), so I wouldn't be notable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Profs can also pass the notability test if they are a fellow of an academic society or hold a named chair at an institution. ... discospinster _talk 13:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GoddessV - to clarify, I wasn't necessarily trying to get a comprehensive list of people who have cited him, just trying to establish if they met criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC which seemed to be what you were claiming. Generally this is translatable to an H-index indicative of "significant impact". Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability, no information, lack of sources. Inexpiable (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with only 32 cites (that I can find) on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The evidence is far too thin for satisfying WP:Prof#C1, and there does not appear to be anything in the record to indicate satisfying WP:Prof on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability via WP:PROF nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2018 (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.