Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Blackman


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Josh Blackman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page does not meet the notability requirements specified in WP:N Idag (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There is a borderline case for WP:NPROF C1 based on citation counts or C7 based on the number of times he's quoted in media on legal topics, and for WP:NAUTHOR based on the reviews I added for his books, but I'm not sure if we quite get to notability. I would encourage the nom to make a more detailed case for deletion, however; I was considering !voting speedy keep because the nom does not make a clear, specific argument. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on my read of WP:N, there’s just not enough here for this person to be notable. It’s hard to prove a negative, but the subject of this article hasn’t really done anything notable that wouldn’t apply to pretty much any other law professor. Idag (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. fails WP:NPROF but has 2 papers with > 100 citations so may meet it in the future; the youtube incident as well as his filings to the Supreme Court are not sufficient to pass general notability. --hroest 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The subject here has a reasonable start on WP:NAUTHOR with 3 reviews of two books in total, a weak start on WP:NPROF with several papers having good citation numbers and interviews with the media on legal topics, and a weak claim to GNG, with moderate coverage in the CNN article and Inside Higher Ed articles.  While no one of these on its own would convince me, the combination leads me to a weak keep.  Agree that it is bordering on WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added one more book review (making four in the article) and didn't add another because I wasn't convinced of its reliability . I think there's enough here for a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 4 reviews from independent sources on 2 books is enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR as creating a well known work that is the subject of multiple independent reviews (criterion 3). Taken along with the coverage of the heckling incident and mention of his blog as a top 100 blog by the ABA Journal seems enough to make the subject notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2021 (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.