Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Berliner


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dana Berliner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Kelo was a big case, but I ultimately don't think it is enough to carry Dana Berliner to notability. She gets mentioned in the press occasionally, but that's about it for secondary sources.. Agtx (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article demonstrates she is one of the leading people in the field of limits to eminent domain use litigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Being counsel in one US Supreme Court case is not sufficient.--Rpclod (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dana Berliner's works have plenty of citations from several peer-rewieved journals (such as Hastings Law Journal, Yale Law Journal, Journal of Labor Research and several others), books printed by both Elsevier and Springer. Her work has been covered by USA mainstream medias such as The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The Washington Post, and several major radio and television broadcasts, since pretty much her beginnings through nowadays. Add to all that the Kelo case, and I can safely argue that her notability is well established as a major authority in the field of eminent domain. There is no need to delete the aforementioned article, just to polish it a little, and improve its sources. Toffanin (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * procedural delay. I have just noticed that the original reporter (@agtx) has removed some content from the wiki article and then nominate it for deletion; even if the removal was legit (it seems so by WP:C policies), this type of behaviour is inappropriate as it makes the article look much weaker than it was before, thus erroneously influencing the users and consequently affecting the decisions made about the AfD. The part removed was essentially a list of secondary sources from respected mainstream publications (by WP:V policies). For now, I assume good faith about the reporter and I formally ask a procedural delay to properly investigate those sources and then have someone "fluent in law" (I'm not) review the entire article. Sorry for the pedantry. Toffanin (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you read the edit summary, you'll note that I removed it because it was as copyright violation. Regardless of the nomination, we're obliged to take out directly and obviously infringing content. Agtx (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * * I have read your edit summary, that is why I have wrote in my previous comment "even if the removal was legit (it seems so by WP:C policies)". I acknowledge the legitimacy of your edit. The point is that you didn't eliminated a long paragraph, or an entire section ripped off from copyrighted materials, but just a single sentence of mere ~30 words, of which half of them were a list of secondary sources. You did it right after the AfD nomination. On top of that, you didn't followed the rest of the WP:C policies (for example alerting the contributor of the copyright infringement, or tagging the article for investigation before the elimination of the content (see WP:CV101 for reference). That is a little too convenient for my taste. Toffanin (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * * All I see in the diffs is the removal of a single, un-referenced sentence, and not even one that would have made a difference to me in evaluating the article. Am I missing something? LaMona (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope LaMona, you're not missing anything. As for Toffanin's implication that I'm up to shady dealings, I assure you that I am not. I chose to AfD this instead of prod it because I wasn't sure whether it would be controversial. Seeing as the article is infrequently edited, a prod would likely have silently gone through with no discussion, which would have been far sneakier but, of course, inappropriate. As far as the single removed sentence, I found the issue after the nomination while doing continuing research on the subject's notability. I did not inform the original contributor about the copyvio because that person hasn't made an edit on Wikipedia since 2007. The "secondary sources" in that sentence were unreferenced, and I am not able to find corroboration for most of them. I figured that the edit summary would be sufficiently clear to explain to any concerned person why I removed the sentence, but perhaps I should also have specifically called it out here. If my transparency was lacking, I apologize. However, I do not appreciate the bad faith implied in your last comment, ("That is a little too convenient..."), and I would ask you to dial it back a little bit. We're all on the same side here. Agtx (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a need to consider whether citations of her papers satisfy PROF. This a bit difficult since GScholar incorrectly lists some of her papers several times. As far as I can see "Public Power, Private Gain" has 67 cites (ie 30 + 23 + 6 + 4 + 2 + 2), "Rethinking the Reasonable Belief Defense to Rape" has 65 (ie 62 + 3), "Opening the Floodgates" has 25 (ie 10 + 6 + 5 + 2 + 2) and "Government Theft" has 5. That would be a GScholar h-index of 4. The average for a (full) law professor is 2.8 according to LSE. James500 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep High power attorney for the Institute for Justice which is a pioneering law firm spearheading an effort to reform civil forfeiture practices by police. Numerous references possible here. Article needs a makeover.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very few, if any, of those articles are actually about Berliner. They throw in a quote by her, but they aren't about her. agt x  22:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But all of them, taken together, are impressive. The Wikipedia rule is If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, so it is easy to make a case for notability on that basis. Further, the cause of property rights is such an important one, with powerful consequences for all Americans, and since she is a major player in the American legal and political world, it explains why so many newspapers have considered her as an authority on this matter. Not only that, she testified at length before Congress. Further, her report Public Power, Private Gain chronicles numerous instances of abuse of property rights. She received a "Best Lawyers" award in 2009. But the topper is being co-lead counsel in the Kelo v New London landmark case. Machiavelli in his book Discourses on Livy wrote about how lawyers can exert a powerful influence in curbing abuse by officials (then, kings; today, greedy governments), and I believe Alexis de Tocqueville echoed a similar sentiment, and this is what is happening here -- the Institute for Justice is having a powerful impact in fighting abuses through legal channels and publicizing what is going on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * keep per user:Tomwsulcer. filceolaire (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep IBID Seems fine as regards to WP:GNG. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2015 (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.