Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kermit Roosevelt III (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Kermit Roosevelt III

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kermit Roosevelt III
• Articles for deletion/Kermit Roosevelt III (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kermit Roosevelt III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author, fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. None of the sources constitute significant coverage.--Michael White^T·C 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC) --Michael White^T·C 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. There seems to be a sufficiently significant coverage of the nominee, mostly concerning his books. I'd say it is enough to pass criteria 4c of WP:AUTHOR or criteria 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

He is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, so #1 coverage in the alumni magazine of the University of Pennsylvania lacks a certain reliability for establishing notability due to conflict of interest. #2 The Washington Times is at least WP:QUESTIONABLE. #3 zibbyowens.com appears to be self-published. #4 is an organizational bio page, which seems questionable for establishing notability; not every person with a bio at a notable organization is notable. As to WP:AUTHOR, I don't think a handful of short book reviews constitutes "won significant critical attention" and as to WP:NACADEMIC, it is hard to argue from his CATO bio that "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."--Michael White^T·C 06:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Some more reviews towards a likely WP:NAUTHOR case. Popular books: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Legal books: [7]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and topic ban the nominator from the deletion process for appalling incompetence. Subject is plainly notable as a novelist, with two novels covered in high-profile outlets like the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal. He has an extensive record of scholarly publications with one highly cited paper and quite a few moderately cited ones. He has one significant nonfiction book, published by a major university press, covered by, inter alia, Publishers Weekly and NPR and held by more than 1500 libraries around the world, per Worldcat.[8] That's fifteen fucking hundred libraries. That's not Harry Potter territory but it's one whomping sign of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:NAUTHOR, it suffices that he's created a body of work that is the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I think that the reviews that have been mentioned here suffice; there are more in the article. The article has WP:PROMO issues, but AfD is not cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. There are issues with the article, but I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR as an academic. Needs clean up, not deletion. EverybodyEdits (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. I considered him notable six years ago, and although I've become slightly more deletionist, I "stand pat" (pardon the pun) that he's notable as a lawyer/jurist. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep under WP:NAUTHOR as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Agreed under WP:NAUTHOR. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:49, 23 August 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.