Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Carver


 * 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. (Aside to Calgrad10: A "close connection to Wikipedia" is most definitely not a justification for keeping an article.) Deor (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian Carver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

New article by seeming WP:SPA or possible throwaway sock. Subject is only an assistant prof, doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Reads like a resume. Sources are mostly primary, can't find any reliable secondary ones. 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment apparently added by an enthusiastic student.  DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I was browsing Berkeley's I School page and those with Wikipedia articles there have fewer references than this. It could be cut down to remove the so-called primary sources and the remaining secondary sources would be more than adequate, but I thought the additional info useful. Calgrad10 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Nice, smart guy I'm sure, but no notability-lending sources at all. Resume-like article strains: "He is a member of the California State Bar, licensed to practice before all the state and federal courts of California, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ... He has advised School of Information Masters students ..." EEng (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest we remove the more resume-like parts and retain the rest. If we hold every academic to a standard this article doesn't meet, then we need to delete most articles on academics. I still think keep because 1) Berkeley Law is recognized as best school for tech law and he has taught its Cyberlaw class for 5 of last 6 years. 2) He literally wrote the book on Internet Law, the Software & Internet Law 4th ed. book referenced in the article. 3) Co-founding Free Law Project is a big deal, as recognized by the Fastcase 50 award 4) He was one of only 3-4 academics on the Wikipedia Education Working Group. 5) That his students have been assigned for years to edit Wikipedia, contributing over 200 articles. I think the close connection to Wikipedia particularly calls for Keep, even if the rest might not be enough for someone else. Calgrad10 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ACADEMIC. EEng (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I just don't see him meeting WP:ACADEMIC, even though he has an interesting career. However, most of what is here is essentially unsourced, because the main sources are either his writings or university PR sources. (The Daily Cal, being the student newspaper, might be considered "3rd party" but it does tend to carry a good deal of light-weight articles about campus life.) If the author would be willing to 1) remove those statements that are not to independent sources and 2) find independent sources to justify WP:ACADEMIC then this might be a WP articleLaMona (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. Too soon for WP:PROF, and too difficult to discern any actual notability among all this wikipuffery. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2014 (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.