Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Taylor (political science professor)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that abundant citations attributed to the subject satisfies WP:PROF. Moved to Michael Taylor (political scientist) per naming convention. WilliamH (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Taylor (political science professor)

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

Just another professor, fails WP:PROF. Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Cambridge doesn't publish non-notable academics (twice), Hero. Unless of course you have read his books and are prepared to argue just how his contributions are non-notable? Trachys (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep since Community, Anarchy and Liberty alone has 226 citations on Google Scholar. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And The Possibility of Cooperation has 615. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to Michael Taylor (political scientist), which is somewhat more clear. He is notable for his writings, not for being on the UW faculty. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * agree on that. It's the usual heading. DGG (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename He meets WP:PROF. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and add the additional material that is sure to be available, such as reviews of the books. Personally, I almost think we should start rejecting nominations or arguments containing the words "just another". DGG (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A thought on this: surely anyone who is a tenured professor will be notable, because by definition they will have made an impact in order to have reached that level? I can understand lecturers and senior lecturers (to use the UK terminology) not being considered notable, but I can't see how someone would make full proferssor and not be considered notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's usually the outcome of debates, but it is 100% possible to get tenure at a research university by keeping your head down and publishing journal articles that don't really have a great impact on anything. There is a good and a bad side to that.  The good side is that a lot of professors contribute to the body of research on the same fashion as wiki-gnomes do to wikipedia.  No bold claims, no new theories, just substantive science that fleshes out the discipline.  The bad side is that the same system can be used by pretty mediocre professors to phone in just enough research to get tenure.  either way, a full-professorship is no guarantee on notability.  In a top school, sure.  They don't tend to make hiring mistakes and they attract the very best, so their tenured professors are liable to be leaders in a field.  But a mid level public or private university can't boast the same way. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * that's why its relevant that this is the University of Washington, a very high ranking flagship university. DGG (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm just saying it isn't true as a matter of course. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cordless Larry's comments. Satisfies WP:PROF as the author of highly cited works. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 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.