Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa L. Tatum


 * 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. X clamation point  06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Melissa L. Tatum

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

Original prod reason was "Does not appear to pass wp:prof", I feel this still applies. Prod tag was removed with no explanation other than "notable". Jenuk1985 |  Talk  14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a CV, not an article. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. Ten Google News hits, but all en passant, with one arguable exception that is better placed in Muskogee Law Reporter. Four similarly trivial Google Books hits. Rarely cited. THF (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:PROF --  Chzz  ►  15:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - while the style isn't brilliant (yeah, THF, it does look like a CV!), there are some decent sources, and through the depth and amount of her work, there appears to be notability. But I take all the "delete" arguments on-board, too! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and THF. TJRC (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Does not seem to clearly pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Found essentially the same as THF. Citation impact seems to be low. Most widely held book in libraries,  The little black book, currently in less than 185 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Independent news coverage exists, but is not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The news coverage Eric Yurken cites is not coverage of Tatum. It's coverage of Indian law or the Mvskoke Law Reporter, the reporter she edits.  She's quoted in the news pieces, but the pieces are not about her.  We need to be careful to distinguish between coverage of an individual and quotation of or mention of an individual in a news report. TJRC (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

*Comment. As I mention above, the Mvskoke Law Reporter has some significant coverage by reliable sources. It has no wikipedia article. One solution here would be to create such an article, including the relevant bits (one or two sentences) from the Tatum article, and then redirect the Tatum article to the reporter article. TJRC (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On further review, there's very little in the Tatum article that would survive into an article on the Mvskoke Law Reporter. While I still think the reporter is notable and wikipedia-worthy, my earlier suggestion just muddies the AFD issue. TJRC (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've also checked the legal research literature (WoS) using the loosest criterion, "Author=(tatum m*)". This returns 11 hits, of which 1 is a law-related publication. However, this hit (Summary judgment and partial judgment in Louisiana: The state we're in (1998) by Tatum M and Norris W, LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW 59(1), 131-173) does not appear on the page which her personal website indicates is her complete list of publications. This article is evidently not hers. In addition, I've checked publications using her maiden name (which appears on her personal site) and did find 1 bona fide hit, a book review in the MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW from 1991, 89(6), which has never been cited by any other work in the refereed law literature. It appears that she has no legal scholarship to speak of. These results suggest that her notability assessment essentially depends upon The Little Black Book, which Eric Yurken found was not widely held. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable lawyer and academic in a specialized field, indigenous peoples law. Full professor at one law school, professor of law at another. Her works are practical, not scholarly, so she had to be judged by overall impact on the profession in general. DGG (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable in her field; publishing "a landmark in Indian Law" seems enough, and in interest of countering systemic bias against such topics.John Z (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. We can debate whether it's a landmark, but it's unquestionably the case that her role in publishing it is trivial in the encyclopedic sense. The Muskogee Law Reporter simply reprints opinions from Indian courts.  We don't have an article about the individuals behind the United States Reports, though those people--Wallace, Black, Howard, Peters, Wheaton, Cranch, and Dallas--are substantially more known in the legal profession and had a much more substantial role in the preparation of the Reports. THF (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Landmark" is from the news story cited above. We have articles on all of those reporters.  See the list at Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It's not completely clear to me that she did so much less.  In any case, trivial  ideas and actions are often the most important ones, if no one else has noticed a need for them or bothered to perform them.John Z (talk)


 * 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.