Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark W. Cannon


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark W. Cannon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:PROF, notability not established -- Flyguy649 talk 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are news articles about him. The article needs these sources but it should not be deleted. He was a professor, an academic department head, and assistant to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That should make him notable. MiRroar (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have completely rewritten the article, straightened out the chronology and added references. Should pass notability now. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. I have reviewed MelanieN's improvements; however, these are articles and books BY the individual, not about him.  The WP:N notability guidelines require significant coverage OF the individual in reliable independent sources. (The nominator and other commentors should note that WP:N requires not that notability IS established, but that notability COULD be established.  Being more careful in your choice of words leads to a higher-quality deletion debate.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If there a more sources establishing notability then lets have them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've re-read the article based upon added refs but as noted they are all works that he published himself. If he's a Prof then his work should have been independantly reviewed and held in some esteem. It's just not apparent. So I have to stay with delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that one way to evaluate an academic is the number of times their work is cited by others at Google Scholar. Google Scholar is a little hard to evaluate because there are several men named Mark W. Cannon, but for this guy I find 32 citations for The makers of public policy, RJ Monsen, MW Cannon - 1965 - McGraw-Hill (12 under one version of the title and 20 under another); 11 for Administrative Change and the Supreme Court, MW Cannon - Judicature, 1973; 8 for Can the Federal Judiciary Be an Innovatative System?, MW Cannon - Public Administration Review, 1973 - jstor.org; 15 for Views from the Bench, MW Cannon, MOB David - 1985 - Chatham House Publ. Inc.; 16 for Interbranch Cooperation in Improving the Administration of Justice: A Major …, MW Cannon, WI Cikins - Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 1981; that's 67 citations in the just first two pages of Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Author of several books, From WorldCat, one of his books, Views from the Bench, is in 600 worldcat libraries. Another, The makers of public policy: is in over 700. Even so specialized a book of his as Urban government for Valencia, Venezuela is in over 100 (I was really surprised to see that one). Quite apart from the journal articles, that makes him a notable author.  DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, DGG, how does his book appearing in many libraries make him notable? That doesn't seem to be a criterion at either WP:N or WP:AUTHOR. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG has his own metric, which without a basis of comparison to similar scholars is of unclear value. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be mentioned quite often in books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He only edited the book Views from the Bench: The Judiciary and Constitutional Politics, and the citations are to individuals authors within that book, such as Robert Bork. Being an administrative assistant should never be a claim to notability, unless it is accompanied by secondary sources, as with Traudl Junge. Geneva Steel was founded in 1944, belying the claim that he was a co-founder. That claim and the claim that he was chairman of the polisci dept of BYU is supported only by an article written by Mark W. Cannon! Abductive  (reasoning) 06:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no convincing evidence that he passes WP:PROF (an edited volume is not research impact, and a department head even if verified is not a high enough administrative position). And being an assistant to someone famous is also not enough; notability is not inherited. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2010 (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.