Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McConvill


 * 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.-- Kubigula (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

James McConvill

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

Subject was only notable for a single incident, and reference to this has been deleted in line with WP:BLP JQ (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure yet whether or not the subject is notable. However the current revision doesn't even has assert notability and is thus eligible for speedy deletion. I encourage editors to look at the history of this article. It was once much longer. Pburka (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Thank you for alerting us to the fact that this was once a longer article. I looked at the June 11 version, and I don't see anything special about this guy. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no sign even in the longer article that he can pass WP:PROF, and (from the longer article) a failed campaign to become head of a school is even less worthy of an article than a failed campaign for higher political office. Director of a think tank could conceivably be notable, if the think tank itself is, but with four ghits (one of them a Wikipedia clone) I don't think this one is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The expanded article now looks like it could plausibly pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  'weak keep Keep--see below if the material that was eliminated shows additional sourcing. To facilitate discussion I have restored it. DGG' (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I re-added the material after it had been deleted, but discussion over at the BLP noticeboard convinced me that WP:BLP applies here. The event is covered in Drew Fraser -a brief mention of McConvill's role might be appropriate there.JQ (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to a definite keep--he has written at least six academic books on law, by international and Australian legal publishers, including one by Cambridge University Press This information was also deleted from the article in an earlier revision, and I have re-added it. there are also at least fifty legal articles in international and Australian journals. The earlier version did not list them properly--just gave a link to Google Scholar. I found them without the least difficult in OCLC, a free resource.    He's a notable scholar, who in addition to that  has reached public attention for one politicized event--so the result of the editing has been to first remove mention of the scholarship, and then remove mention of the event -- and after that, the article looks deletable. DGG (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Turns out some additional material was omitted; the fact that he received a PhD in addition to his law degree, the name of the law firm he worked for, the existence of his association with a major research center, his editorship of a major journal besides the one involved in the controversy, and a full list of the over fifty  publications in legal journals.  I'm still checking. The full history of the article is quite illuminating--the very first version was simultaneously a puff piece, with supplemental material to turn it into an attack on him. DGG (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Pburka (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While it's not exactly an AfD problem, I'd suggest a look at the history. If we have an article on McConvill, it's hard to avoid mention of the Drew Fraser article, and there's been a consistent attempt to scrub this info from the article. My view, despite the PhD and the textbook with CUP is that his former career as an academic would not amount to notability without the Fraser business. So I take the view compared to the options of (i) a puff piece and (ii) a long-runnin g edit war/BLP dispute, deletion is the appropriate course. JQ (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep is a major academic who would deserve an article even without the Fraser matter. I furthermore see no reason not to include the Fraser blow-up; while obviously per WP:UNDUE it should not focus on that matter it is notable and should be included. When matters get international attention it is hard to justify deleting them using BLP penumbra logic. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for related issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (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.