Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Cound


 * 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   Speedy keep. Sometimes it is better to improve an article than to nominate it for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

John J. Cound

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

i'm not sure if this can be better improved as the best I found was this and this and this and this hasn't changed much since starting in December 2006. Pinging, and. SwisterTwister  talk  23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep. Neither "these are the sources I found" or "hasn't changed much since 2006 are deletion reasons. He meets WP:PROF #4 for his textbook on civil procedure. Per Kevin R. Johnson ("Integrating Racial Justice into the Civil Procedure Survey Course", 54 J. Legal Educ. 242-63 (2004)) this is "perhaps the leading casebook...in the field" which went through 8 editions from 1968 through 2001. His textbook was called "a great teaching tool" by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. We do not delete articles because they need to be improved, but haven;t been, if there is evidence of underlying notability . He very clearly  meets WP:PROF,  due among other things to the editorship of multiple editions of standard textbooks. (they do need to be cited). Additionally, multiple visiting professorships   normally  count as significant  honors. The cv is sufficient evidence for them. A few adjective need to be removed, which I've done.  DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep some of the authors he wrote those text books like Friedenthal are very notable in the legal academy.--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This AFD nomination is too erroneous. Subject easily passes WP:PROF per DGG.  Jim Car  ter  06:44, 21 October 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.