Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Mawhinney


 * 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. Shereth 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Alison Mawhinney

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable academic. No evidence is presented that this academic rises above others of her discipline or specialty. Article mentions that she has presented a paper at a symposium and published an article, but there's nothing inherently notable about either, no was any notable action taken as a result of either. This seems like a bit of a vanity article, though I'm far from certain that's the case. Relevant Google hits are few, and Google Scholar returns are also few and not particularly noteworthy. (Contested speedy and PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE KEEP: As the creator of this article I am obviously biased, but I would like to say that Dr. Mawhinney is not a "non-notable academic", any more than Brice Dickson, whose article page is minute in comparison to Dr. Mawhinney's, is non-notable. Mawhinney has done more than "presented a paper at a symposium and published an article". She began lecturing at the School of Law at Queen's University Belfast (QUB) in 2006. She maintains direct communications and gives her advice and counsel to the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as well as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, submitting reports regarding freedom of religion, children's rights, denominational schooling as well as interdenominational & non-denominational schooling, demography, and other important topics. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I've nominated Brice Dickson for deletion, thanks to Rotund's heads-up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I am sure this academic will someday qualify for an article, but she doesn't pass PROF muster yet unless there's more relevant data about her accomplishments that has yet to be included. Townlake (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF, with a little bit of a soapboxing problem as well due to the article mostly being a lengthy quote from an essay she wrote. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont want to sound like a tenure committee reviewer and say "inadequate amount of publications" but that's the phrase that comes to mind here. DGG (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional reason added for keeping: I have added Mawhinney's publications to her article - can you re-review? Thanks. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had seen them. Three journal articles is a good definition of "inadequate" unless they become very highly cited. At this point, Google Scholar doesn't show any citation, but if you can find anything significant (say over 20 journal citations, or citations in really major appellate cases) in the legal indexes, please add the information. They're still new, so she may become notable in the future.DGG (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with DGG. There's a difference between having scholarly articles published and meeting the standards set by ACADEMIC. Townlake (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most academics so soon after their Ph.D. have not yet made enough of an impact to pass WP:PROF, and she seems no exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.