Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Falk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Other than the nominator, there were no delete opinions. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:39 2008 May 7 (UTC) (non-admin)

[edit] Jim Falk

Jim Falk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

does not satisfy WP:PROF, claim to have authored and co-authored over 100 papers, unverified Michellecrisp (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Don't forget that Falk has authored or co-authored five books, listed here. He is clearly more notable than your average professor. Johnfos (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Most professors have contributed to writing to five books. Remember co-authoring can be as a little as writing one chapter. There is a lack of evidence that Falk is a noted expert that is well reported from various sources. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. For goodness sake Michelle, writing a chapter in a book and co-authoring a book are not the same thing, and it is clear from the Falk book list that he has done more than write a chapter in each of the books concerned. Also, I would be surprised if "most professors" have authored or co-authored five or more books, so please provide a reference to support this statement if you have one. Johnfos (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I still don't see how he satisfies any of the WP:PROF criteria, are these books widely reported academic sources? I think not. from that list the last book he authored or co-authored was 1992, how can you be considered an expert if you have had no published books for 16 years? One of those co-authored books was publised by a very left green group [1] , hardly a noted academic publisher. Another of his books is being sold as used copies for 2 canadian cents on Amazon [2] Michellecrisp (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Michelle, you are being hypercritical of Jim Falk...

The book published by the "very left green group", titled Red Light for Yellow Cake is not included in Falk's list of five books. If we include this it makes a total of six books. But we shouldn't focus narrowly on Falk's books. It is clear that he has also devoted much time to consultancies and these include:[3]

  • The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
  • Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
  • The Hon Lynne Kosky, Minister for Education and Training Victoria (Chair, Review of the Registered Schools Board)
  • Alligator Rivers Region Technical Advisory Committee (appointee, Commonwealth Minister for the Environment)
  • Australian Research Council
  • Climate Change Section, Commonwealth Department of Environment, Sport and Territories
  • Illawarra Regional Organisation of Councils
  • Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency
  • Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Commonwealth Department of Arts, Sport, the *Environment and Territories
  • Sydney Water, NSW
  • Water Board, NSW
  • Public Works, NSW
  • Environment Protection Agency, NSW
  • Council for the plaintiff, Dingwall v Commonwealth of Australia, Supreme Court of NSW
  • Princilla Fleming Q.C. in the matter of Daryl Richard Johnstone v The Commonwealth of Australia, Supreme Court of NSW
  • Hullensians Pty Ltd
  • Commission of Inquiry into Electricity Generation in NSW
  • Technology Directorate, Department of Technology, West Australian Government
  • Department of Minerals and Energy, Victorian Energy Plan, Victoria
  • Australian Council of Trade Unions

If you are interested in Falk's recent work, please see these lists of publications for recent years: [4] and [5] Johnfos (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment number of consultancies is not an indication of notability as an academic, most academics especially in science, technology and engineering provide expert advice to government agencies and private sector. If you quote http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person35647.html then every academic at Melbourne uni I can find on this should have a Wikipedia article.can we have some more independent sources to establish his notability besides www.unimelb.edu.au ? I don't see how I'm being hypocritical but I do note he has similar views to what you're into.but please be objective here, yes he does have expertise but the question is he notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Michelle, it is clear that you are just not going to have it that Jim Falk satisfies WP notability, no matter what evidence you are given. I think DGG has summed up the situation nicely, so I won't bother writing again. Johnfos (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
John, you have not stated which criterion of WP:PROF he specifically meets, secondly, all the references to support his supposed notability are essentially self published sources of content he would approve himself on www.unimelb.edu.au . Specifically, the use of www.unimelb.edu.au to prove notability fails this Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I am looking for independent sources as prove notability including high respect from other noted academics, use of publications as a textbook or otherwise. If you can provide them here, I will happily support his article. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Like most senior people (he's an emeritus professor) he's been writing books for a while, which makes him more not less distinguished. One of the books is published by OUP, another by Heinemann. That would generally be considered to make them respected. And then there are the 100 academic papers... and the chairmanships or directorships at three major universities... and the government consultancies. the article needs some expansion to discuss his role in the political debates. DGG (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment but the last book was published 16 years ago. and look at the publications tab of http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person35647.html it counts papers from 2001, I don't know when he started at Uni of Melbourne but it appears he's only produced 6 papers. If you are trying to use academic publications criterion of WP:PROF, I don't think he satisfies it.
  • An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per DGG above. Lots more notable than hundreds of one hit wonder recording artists and marginally notable video games that Wikiedia affords a page to. Cewvero (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant research record, including a highly cited (221 hits per GoogleScholar[6]) book. GoogleBooks gives 347 hits[7]. The director of a research center at a significant university (Melbourne). Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current director of institute at a major university, emeritus professor at another university, former deputy vice-chancellor and pro vice-chancellor at two other universities. 5 books, several with top-quality publishers, with high citations (per Nsk92). Much consultancy work. Meets my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above, but I'd also like to point out that the repeated assertion that his last book being published 16 years ago counts against his notability is simply silly. When was William Shakespeare's last book published? Or Geoffrey Chaucer's? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
difference is Jim Falk is alive and still working. It's unusual that an active expert has not published for 16 years. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:46, 5 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.