Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviam Soifer


 * 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. Weak or not, there is consensus that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Aviam Soifer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is an academic who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Was dean of a law school which does not indicate notability per PROF, and never held highest level post. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. At both William S. Richardson School of Law and Boston College Law School, Dean is the highest level post. In any case, it is trivially easy to confirm that the subject is well-published relative to his field. BD2412  T 03:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa is the institution. The subject was the dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law, which is a school within the university. This is how nearly every major university in the USA is set up and the difference between president of the university and dean of a school within that university is precisely the distinction WP:PROF clarifies in criteria #6. Paisarepa (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Law schools are a separate category of institution, as ABA accreditation rules require them to have substantial administrative independence from the universities with which they are affiliated. However, even if this institution were bound by the referenced explanation, it also provides for notability where the deanship is of a high-ranking institution. You should rather easily be able to confirm that Boston College Law School routinely ranks in the top 15-20% of law schools in the country, and is one of the most historic. This would be a notable deanship, even without the subject's unusual breadth of publications (which you have not addressed). BD2412  T 03:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PROF #6. A deanship does not somehow become notable based on the ranking of the school or how 'historic' it is. If you believe the subject meets criteria #1 based on their publishing and that this is "trivially easy to confirm" then I invite you to confirm it. Paisarepa (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The provision you reference states "exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)". It can not reasonably be doubted that the ranking and notability of a major law school is insubstantial to this exception. As for their publications, it sounds like you are suggesting WP:BEFORE should have been done here. BD2412  T 04:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE was done. There is no need to get pointy, my nominating for deletion an article that you created is not a personal attack. My research indicated that the subject is fairly well-published and cited, but not significantly more so than typical academic within the field. I am simply asking to see what you say is 'trivially easy to confirm'; that's the purpose of this forum. Paisarepa (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not this ... again. Deans of law are not automatically notable, any more than deans of other disciplines are. There is no special exception for law. There never has been a special exception for law. You will have to argue on other grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren't in the 1800s here. We are not talking about "Deans of law" but about Deans of law schools. Yes, there was a time historically when a law dean was just a department head, like any other academic unit might have, but those days are long gone. By dint of the power of the ABA to confer accreditation, law school deans are required to have substantially greater autonomy and authority than academic deans generally (the other exception would be for medical school deans); furthermore, law schools are required to have their own independent physical facilities, law libraries, and various other services maintained independently of the university, all of which must fall under the authority of the Dean. Deans of larger law schools occupy a position of importance and authority at least equal to the president of a smaller college. A standard that is ignorant of this reality is just silly. BD2412  T 04:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bluster and tacking the word "school" at the end of the name of your thing-within-a-university to make it look impressive still fails to address the underlying falsity of your arguments. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Having taught both undergraduate classes in a university department with a dean within the university's academic structure, and at a law school, I have experienced the difference personally. I'm not sure what you are considering "false" here. Is it your position that the ABA does not, in fact, require universities to vest law school deans with a level of autonomy beyond what is typically required of university departments with deans? Are you contending that law schools in the United States are not, in fact, required to have separate facilities and libraries under the authority of that Dean? BD2412  T 05:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is my position that WP:PROF says "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient", that it makes no exception for law, and that your or my personal experiences or opinions as university instructors can have no effect on that plain and unambiguous wording. If someone is to be notable as a dean of law, it must be through some other notability criterion. It is also my position that you have previously and repeatedly tried to change the guideline to make law special, failed to achieve consensus to do so, and that there is some dishonesty involved in pretending that the change you wanted was made when in fact it was rejected . —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that you would bring up an eleven-year-old discussion for this point, though it is nice to see that you have remained consistent in declining to consider the evidence provided. You are, of course, always free to change your !vote below. BD2412  T 15:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your arguments throughout this discussion have been a series of straw men -- first, that law school deans are more autonomous than other deans when the real issue is if they are notable per Wikipedia guidelines, second, arguing that BEFORE wasn't done when the real issue is the existence of the information you claim is trivially easy to confirm (which is a straw man on top of a straw man, as 'well published' alone does not prove notability -- well-cited is what would need to be shown), and now the implication that an old discussion is useless when the real issue is that you are right now, in this discussion, pretending that the failed change was actually made. You're providing an awful lot of bluster but I would prefer you provide evidence of notability based on (actual) Wikipedia guidelines.  Pais  a re pa  19:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you comment on content, not on the contributor. That said, please re-review the article in light of the improvements that have been made since this nomination was initiated, per WP:HEY. In particular (but by no means exclusively), the following referenced articles contain substantial coverage of the subject:
 * Apgar, Sally (March 16, 2003). "Pay doubles for new UH dean: Aviam Soifer, chosen as head of the UH law school, will earn about $250,000"
 * Zachary R. Dowdy, "Professor named dean of BC law", The Boston Globe (May 2, 1993), p. 36.
 * Richard Chacón, "Law school dean at BC to resign; Departure of Soifer is unexpected", The Boston Globe (November 26, 1997), p. B7.
 * There are also numerous articles reporting, in some depth, specific aspects of his work on cases, causes, and theories. BD2412  T 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pointing out fallacy-based arguments in the present discussion is focusing on content. From the headlines it appears obvious those articles are routine coverage of the kind you see any time the dean of a notable school resigns or is appointed which does not improve the subject's notability. Regardless, I'll put some effort into digging up copies of them and will take a look at the rest of the changes to the article.  Pais  a re pa  22:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTROUTINE: "bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Notability (people)". If this were an article on, e.g., Appointment of Aviam Soifer as dean of Boston College Law School, then WP:ROUTINE would apply. BD2412  T 22:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet another straw man, once again to avoid acknowledging the fact that holding the position of dean is insufficient to fulfill the notability guidelines. The specific guideline WP:ROUTINE was never invoked or implied, nor would any reasonable, competent editor have assumed it was. Routine coverage is the opposite of significant coverage, and per WP:PROF, "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources." Being a dean does not fulfill the notability criteria, so routine coverage of the subject's gaining or leaving a deanship could not possibly be evidence of notability. We both know you are familiar with this criteria so please stop with the fallacies and off-topic diversions.  Pais  a re pa  00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will explain this very carefully. The articles that discuss his selection to various deanships also discuss his scholarly and other activities, in sufficient depth to constitute significant coverage. I was under the impression that you were going to look at these sources. However, the Zachary R. Dowdy piece in particular describes the subject's origins, teaching history, and involvement in notable cases completely distinct from his deanships. Other sources cited in the article specifically discuss the subject's involvement in these matters unrelated to his deanship. BD2412  T 00:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course these announcements have additional information. You're in academia and I'm sure have read hundreds of these -- have you read a single one that didn't have additional information about the subject? I certainly never have. If the subject is notable for 'scholarly and other activities' then those other activities would have been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The fact that they are not, but rather are employed as filler material in routine announcements, does not help prove notability.  Pais  a re pa  00:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat: Other sources cited in the article specifically discuss the subject's involvement in these matters unrelated to his deanship. Other sources, meaning, not the sources that discuss their hiring for deanships and the like. For example, "Researcher finds articles on nuclear bomb secrets", Calgary Herald, (May 23, 1979), p. D-16;  "Scientist discovers more H-bomb how-to manuals", The Miami News, (May 23, 1979), p. 2-A; both discussing Soifer's involvement in the Progressive case. Glenn Collins, "Understanding paternalism", Fort Worth Star-Telegram (October 22, 1981), p. 3C, via the New York Times News Service, discussing particular research project of Soifer's.  BD2412  T 01:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per BD2412 and WP:NPROF. Dean of two law schools, author of notable book (I found three reviews), journal articles widely cited per Scholar . (Note: not unusual that he published only one book—legal scholars often publish largely or exclusively in journals.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the Supreme Court of Hawaii issued a proclamation in his honor: . AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say he even meets WP:BASIC given the sources has recently added. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. If the only case for notability were his dean position (clearly and obviously not enough for WP:PROF to anyone who actually pays attention to the wording of the guideline rather than trying to pretend that it says something different from what it actually says) or one book with three reviews, I would say delete. But I don't think law is typically a high-citation field, so six publications with over 100 citations in Google Scholar looks like enough for WP:PROF to me, even though it doesn't even put him into the top 100 scholars of constitutional law listed by Google Scholar . —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have just added sources showing that the subject received national (and international, if you count Canada) coverage for his role in the United States v. Progressive, Inc. case. BD2412  T 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Universities are organized into schools/colleges, and the dean of the law school doesn't meet WP:NPROF C6 any more than the dean of the school of literature science and arts does.  However, the deanship certainly doesn't hurt notability; meanwhile the good number of papers with 100+ citations looks to me like C1, and I think that election to the American Law Institute might be C3.  Combined with support from WP:NAUTHOR for a reviewed book, this looks like a solid keep case to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Election to the American Law Institute certainly helps, but a bunch of people are elected every month, so it is not highly selective. Number of citations is fine for WP:NPROF. Deanship in a not particularly notable university makes the subject far from WP:NPROF.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 21:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia's insistence on applying much more restrictive criteria to knowledge workers than to professional wrestlers is a prime example of institutional stupidity. Here, that stupidity is compounded by refusal to recognize that professional schools like Yale Drama, Harvard Divinity, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Stanford Law, etc, etc, etc should be regarded as "major academic institutions" on Wikipedia, just as they are regarded in the rational world. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:24, 21 September 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.