Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Parks


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  08:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Malcolm Parks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN academic, fails the GNG and WP:PROF. While searching for substantive coverage in reliable sources is not easy (there being many people out there by this name), none were found all the same. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article was deprodded in 2014 with the peculiar rationale that NN professors needed to be taken to AfD, instead of other processes. Fair enough, it's rather past time someone obliged in this case.   Ravenswing     07:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Observation I found this mini-biography which says "He was editor‐in‐chief of the Journal of Communication from 2010 to 2014." Looking at WP:NACADEMIC, there is a possible claim for notability per "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." However I do not know how to be sure that the Journal of Communication is of sufficient stature. asnac (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, the study of communication theory appears to be relatively recent ("The main landmark event that opened the way to the development of communication theory was the publication of an article by Claude Shannon (1916–2001) in the Bell System Technical Journal in July and October 1948"), so a journal extablished in 1951 that "is ranked fifth out of 88 journals in the category "Communication"." may be deemed "a major, well-established academic journal". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of whether the journal is significant, he also has heavily cited publications, enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Splendid. I hope that those of you who believe the article should be kept will take the trouble to properly source the article.  Eleven years without is quite enough.   Ravenswing      05:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF and WP:PROF. Article now sourced to the typical level of a stub. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I've not looked carefully, but seems to have a high number of citations for WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Based on large number of citations and editor-in-chief of a journal between 2011–2015. Earthianyogi (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2020 (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.