Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Borchers


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Borchers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is a lawyer and an administrator at Creighton University School of Law in Omaha, Nebraska. Per the article, he has been elected three times to Douglas County Sanitary Improvement District #498, has contemplated a run for U.S. Senate in 2014 but decided against, and might run for the Nebraska State Legislature in 2016. None of these seem to confer notability under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. A Google search for ("patrick borchers" creighton) turned up a single Omaha World-Herald story (cited in article) about Borchers and another individual who were considering running for the US Senate in 2014; apart from that, there are lots of passing mentions of Borchers, but nothing in-depth: mostly, passing mentions of or brief quotations from him in articles about Creighton. Google News searches for ("patrick borchers") and ("patrick j borchers") turned up no evidence of notability. A Google News Archives search for ("patrick borchers" creighton) produced results much like those of the Google web search: some brief quotes and passing mentions, but nothing in-depth. On the basis of these searches, appears to fail WP:GNG. Article was created by an SPA, User:Patrick J. Borchers, whose username suggests a COI and possibly WP:PROMOTION. Ammodramus (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Borchers's influence on courts across the country clearly qualifies him under WP:ACADEMIC. See edits to article jjhen
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Borchers clearly qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. See the edited entry.  He is one of the most prominent authors on private international law and has been cited from courts across the U.S. and into Canada.   jjhen — Jjhen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Borchers clearly qualifies under WP:ACADEMIC. He's clearly a leading academic. Hemingwayfan — Hemingwayfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article says only "he has argued a case" and "his publications have more than zero citations", neither of which is exceptional nor rises to the level of impact needed for WP:PROF. The WP:AUTOBIO and self-promotion issues are not necessarily fatal (a sufficiently notable subject can rise above being an autobiography) but they don't help, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Clicking on the GScholar link above lists several articles with very high citation rates (181, 173, 124, etc). For his (low-citation density) field, this seems to be very high. --Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's been some disagreement between editors as to whether certain statements in the article that have a bearing on Borchers's notability are adequately sourced; see article's talk page.  Ammodramus (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in addition to the notable level of citation rates pointed out by Randykitty, he has also held a number of administrative posts within his field. While these do not in themselves establish notability, I do think that they do show a certain level of it that combined with the high level of citation meets the requirement for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. GS h-index of 19 passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 10:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - easily passes WP:PROF - named professorship, many publications w/ high h-index, dean of a major law school. Disclosure: I was acquainted with the subject when I was a law student, but he was not one of my professors. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2013 (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.