Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Blanck


 * 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. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Peter Blanck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hagiography that relies on WP:PRIMARY sources. Major contributors have rather blatant conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Star pass of WP:Prof with an h-index of 40. Nominator is referred to WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete.  no evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently uncertain pending 's analysis. SwisterTwister   talk  05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude. Make your own decisions. Waiting for someone else and then adding "me too, per someone else" contributes nothing useful to these discussions. Also, your other typical response, "no evidence of the applicable notability" is so un-specific that it gives the impression that you have just copied and pasted it without even finding out anything specific about the subject of the discussion. Make an effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We use consensus, not voting. If you don't have an opinion, you have no reason to act like you do. It contributes nothing. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think ST is using this wording merely to notify me of the discussion. I've asked him to, as I can no longer keep track of them all by myself. It doesn't mean we say the same thing--we do only a little more than half the time.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in this case because of holding a named professorship ata major research university, the Charles M. and Marion Kierscht Professor of Law at the University of Iowa. That all by itself is enough to meet WP:PROF. even were thee nothing else, and to judge the notability, there's no need to look further. But the hagiological aspects noted by the nom are real, --it 's the equivalent of promotionalism, and some degree of rewriting will be needed. I've just done it. It took only omitting the minor material.  DGG ( talk ) 12:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not familiar enough with the citation patterns in law to tell for sure whether his Google scholar citations (for author:pd-blanck, with 5 papers cited more than 100 times each) are enough to pass WP:PROF, but my guess is that they most likely are. Clearer is the double pass of #C6 for both the University Professor title and the earlier named professorship. And he has a recent award that might not be enough for #C2 but is also contributory to notability. Article needs to be stubbed back to avoid close paraphrasing and copied text, but I think that can be done without the more drastic step of deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2016 (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.