Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Epstein (law professor)


 * 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. This is based on the rule that anyone who holds a named chair qualifies. Amthernandez (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

David Epstein (law professor)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Obscure faculty member with no claim to fame. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory Amthernandez (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can't say he's obscure, seems to be an expert on the topic bankruptcy. Salih  ( talk ) 07:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 07:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Obscurity  : I did have a comment about obscurity and inclusion. I guess after all the guidelines and policies, I still have to ask if a typical wiki or google user would find an entry helpful. And, historically, obscure yet notable ( explanation to follow) topics are those most likely to be needed by a casual "researcher" who may be using an encyclopedia rather than some other resource. So, unless you just want a collection of popular factoids, it may be important to determine if "obscure" is really the opposite of "notable" and even try to find "obscure but notable" topics. In this case, is the person known of referenced in any specialized document collection such as court filings( here the lawyers would help themselves if they made the court PACER system free and searchable but IIRC they accept scanned PDF's which are not searchable by automated tools and their token charges intimidate casual users) and legal trade or other journals? Does his name come up a lot in SEC filings and may be of interest to people researching a specific company? Certainly there are issues with duplication but even if his bio comes up in legal bio sites, it doesn't seem to create a problem for the searcher. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  13:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * further comment on delete On reading other deletes, notability is a common theme. This man is not notable.  There are small town mayors deemed not notable.  A professor's department is far, far smaller than a town so even a department chairman is a small fry.  A professor may be in an obscure journal but all of us are in high school yearbooks and often have a mention in newspapers.  Nerdseeksblond mentioned his name is in SEC filings.  A lot of murderers have had their article deleted despite many mentions in the news.  So a name in print in SEC filings is not good enough.  I looked up notability and if he was a university president (highest position) or chancellor in some universities, he would qualify.  Otherwise, he doesn't and doesn't for the other criteria.  As far a being a notable professor, this man is not one of them.  So even if he's a nice man, he's a delete. Amthernandez (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have specific policies to determine whether an Academic is notable or not; see WP:PROF. Salih  ( talk ) 16:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it can be verified, being the DEAN of two notable law schools is certainly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm going to go out on a limb and accept that his resume is not a lie, and in that case, keep per Niteshift. I'm adding an unreferenced tag to the article, for good measure. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being the primary BarBri lecturer on contracts for 25 years is enough to establish notability. About 80% of American lawyers take a BarBri course before taking the bar exam, which means that for 25 years over 40,000 people per year have sat through David Epstein's discourse on how "Armadillos from Texas play rap eating tacos" (agreement, formation, terms, performance, remedies, excuse, third parties), and his endless jokes about his supposed obsession with Sharon Stone. bd2412  T 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to some text in this news search (unfortunately behind a for-pay firewall) he also held a named professorship. Sometimes those are ex officio (a slush fund for the dean) but more often they are given as an honor to distinguished professors; if the latter, he passes WP:PROF #5. Regardless, he seems to be a prominent law scholar. By the way, the similarity between his name and mine is purely coincidental; as far as I know we are completely unrelated. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Law school deans are inherently notable, whether they hold a chair or not. bd2412  T 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:PROF says. But I found and documented another named chair, at Alabama. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF #6: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society". Dean is the highest level academic post at a law school, which is an academic institution. bd2412  T 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no. See "Notes and examples", #13. This criterion refers only to president or chancellor of the whole university, and was explicitly intended to forestall "she's chair of a department therefore she's automatically notable" style arguments. It may well be that most deans of law schools are notable, but not by this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A law school dean is simply not comparable to a department chair. The American Bar Association sets forth regulations on the operation of law schools which must be followed for such an institution to receive and maintain ABA accreditation. These regulations specify that "A law school shall have a full-time dean, selected by the governing board or its designee, to whom the dean shall be responsible". ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 206(a). Thus, a law school dean may not simply be a professor selected by fellow professors, nor even by the President of the University. Various provisions in the ABA regulations act to require that a law school will have substantial independence from the university with which it is affiliated, so the law school dean effectively holds the highest post within a distinct academic institution.  bd2412  T 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WRONG INFORMATION BY BD2412 A law school dean is a subordinate to the university chancellor or president.  See this link of a law school dean that got fired.  The dean is NOT independent. http://www.ocregister.com/news/chemerinsky-law-eastman-1844112-dean-school Amthernandez (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 more law school deans fired by the university president in one year alone See http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Law/No-good-dean-goes-unpunished-seven-law-deans-were-fired-so-far-this-year-despite-raising-funds-hirin.html Amthernandez (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did I say that a law school dean can not be fired by a University professor? Please read more carefully (or, perhaps, at all) before throwing out accusations that do not relate to the evidence provided. bd2412  T 02:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article as it stands is tightly-sourced and I see no problems with it. He also has authored some books, on bankruptcy:  and consumer law:, and I think at least one other book, and google scholar shows evidence that the books have been cited, and at least one of them is in its second edition.  Cazort (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * more information Some of these people have a conflict of interest because they have taken a course (BarBri) given by him.
 * I don't have a problem with former students chipping in as long as their contributions to the discussion are well-reasoned. I once created an article on a professor while I shared an office next to his...people close to someone are more likely to know the subject in detail, and are more likely to be able to locate good sources.  Also, I think "Some of these people" is a classic example of weasel words--either name specific people and give evidence, or refrain from making accusations.  Cazort (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some of these people" in this case would be more than half of the lawyers practicing in the United States today (which is exactly why the guy is notable). To suggest that this represents a conflict of interest is almost like saying that anyone who has watched some Obama speeches has a conflict of interest in writing about Obama. bd2412  T 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Having taken the course shouldn't preclude anyone from commenting on the issue. There is no financial incentive, nor any evident reason to promote the course. Should I be precluded from commenting on article about Florida State University because I attended it? I guess no commenting on Steelers articles either. Do veterans have a COI if the comment on articles about the Army? Come on guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROF says: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. SEEMS TO FAIL, NO IMPACT OTHER THAN GIVING A LECTURE, NO RESEARCH BY HIM CITED

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.FAILS The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) FAILS

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. FAILS, JUST A PENCIL PUSHER

The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. FAILS

The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. FAILS, HE WAS NOT CHANCELLOR OR UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF LAW SCHOOLS, MANY IN UNIVERSITIES THAN HAVE LITTLE REPUTATION NATIONALLY

The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. FAILS

The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. FAILS

The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. FAILS

SORRY, TOO OBSCURE AND NOT NOTABLE A MAN. HOWEVER, IF A DEAN IS ENOUGH FOR THE RULES, THEN THE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED TO SAY "BEING A DEAN OF A SCHOOL (PART OF A UNIVERSITY) IS ENOUGH FOR WIKIPEDIA" I DON'T OBJECT TO A DEAN IF THE RULES SAY THAT A DEAN, NO MATTER HOW OBSCURE, QUALIFIES. Amthernandez (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please calm down here! This is not failblog.org!  I think this person meets the WP:GNG; I don't think we need to appeal to him being "automatically notable" just because he's a dean--frankly that's irrelevant to me (I would agree with you that being a dean doesn't automatically make one notable--it would depend on how much had been documented about you in reliable sources, as a result of benig a dean).  Cazort (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of fail, Amthernandez fails badly on interpreting WP:PROF #5. Epstein has held at least two named chairs at major institutions, one of which is documented in the article, the other of which I am certain of from news search results but do not have adequate documentation to add to the article. It seems likely to me that he passes several others of the criteria as well (e.g. here's plenty of evidence that he passes #4: his texts are assigned reading in, it seems, thousands of courses). And in any case BD2412 were not disagreeing at all on whether he is notable, only on a technical point in one of our guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per the rational arguments and research to justify application of WP:PROF#5 by David Eppstein; the filibustering by Amthernandez isn't helping much either. An early close might be appropriate in this case. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Amthernandez, please stop with all the oversized text and bolding. Relax dude, we can all read. Where is my WP:Trout? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. If someone can say with authority that all law school deans are notable, I will withdraw the nomination.  Also if someone can say with authority that any faculty member who is given a chair is notable, I will withdraw the nomination.  But be careful about the chair requirement.  Some rich people donate to a university and the department chair assigns a faculty member to be that Joe Smith Professor of Sociology.  The faculty member could be a non-notable idiot so using the definition of a chair is very silly.  Please respond. Amthernandez (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As per WP:PROF #5, the person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research are notable. He meets this criterion and hence notable enough to have his bio on Wikipedia. Further, he does not seem to be an idiot for me and others who !voted here. Salih  ( talk ) 05:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wether he's an idiot or not, is irrelevant to this AfD, but many universities clearly don't think so. In addition, the arguments at this AfD have shown that he isn't the idiot. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes criterion #5 of WP:PROF. Salih  ( talk ) 05:41, 12 July 2009 (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.