Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kermit Roosevelt III


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kermit Roosevelt III

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since the proposed deletion was removed (although no explanation for the objection was given), I am nominating for deletion. As I said in the proposed deletion, this article fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage from any reliable third-party sources. The only reliable sources that talk about him do so just briefly, and the rest are staff profiles (i.e. Yale profile) and a review of his book. Material he wrote himself does not count as notable coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - he passes my standards for notability for lawyers and/or professors: he was a SCOTUS law clerk, and he wrote a leading text on conflict of laws. Book reviews are good sources. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the book review barely mentions him and is predominantly about the book itself. The book review was also the only reliable source that went in depth on anything affiliated with him (not counting family affiliations). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ?. GS h-index of 12 may miss WP:Prof. Not much else. Much is made of subject's family background. May be too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
 * As far as I can tell from WP:PROF criteria, fails all of WP:NACADEMICS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, The myth of judicial activism, currently in more than 1,000 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Has an h-index of 12 based on GS, with one pub. with more than 100 citations to it.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if his book is in lots of libraries, there are still no reliable third-party sources that go in-depth on him, which is why he fails WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Be more careful with your edits - you broke the link to my user account.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, now fixed it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. A book review in the NYT by Alan Dershowitz seems like a high level of notability for an author to me. It doesn't bother me that the review doesn't talk about his birthday or his culinary preferences; it's about his works, what he's notable for. And his book The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions has 125 scholarly citations (i.e. 125 reliable sources about this one book, though likely most not very in-depth), and some of his other publications also have relatively high numbers of citations, possibly not enough by themselves for WP:PROF (I'm not sure) but certainly enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One review alone isn't noteworthy, and since you mention WP:BIO1E seems like this actually is a case of that. My point was that the only reliable sources that ever mention him only do so briefly. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem with keeping this article:
 * ref#1: Only a passing mention
 * ref#2: Inconclusive (ref cannot be found)
 * ref#3: Dead ref
 * ref#4: Barely even mentions man himself
 * ref#5: Barely even mentions man himself
 * ref#6: Barley even mentions man himself
 * ref#7: Barely even mentions man himself
 * External link#1: University profile: Not a third-party source
 * External link#2: No coverage, only lists books published
 * External link#3: No coverage, only summary of a book
 * Even if ref#2 had in-depth coverage, we would need multiple reliable third-party sources that go in depth on him. Therefore he fails notability per WP:GNG whether WP:PROF#1 is met or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2014 (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.