Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert N. Clinton


 * 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert N. Clinton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic, member of non-notable minor court (all due respect to the Ho-Chunk Nation). Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  05:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. As written, does not satisfy WP:PROF or WP:BIO in general. Ping me if refs showing notability are found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing vote after ping and reconsidering new arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. There are plenty of sources out there showing the notability of this subject. That they have not been put in the article is purely an editorial issue. bd2412  T 11:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now even if longshot.   I created bcz he's one of the handful being quoted re the Ted Cruz kerfuffle on the meaning of the term ¨native-born citizen¨, and the name is vanilla enuf that it was confusing to Dab him from potentially separate people. Long term relevance may be tiny, but fleshing this out could save repetition of my initial suspicion that the tribal judge and constitutional scholar just happened to share a name. In retrospect, i suppose his relatively rare natural perspective on the connection between ancestry and citizenship law has at least passing connection to potential expertise, which may or not be important to events of the next 7 months. --Jerzy•t 00:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, is notable enough for WP:PROF, has sources. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - according to GScholar, has an h-index of over 20, in a field where we almost always have to fall back on other evidence to show that WP:PROF is met. PWilkinson (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in that case. Delete perhaps actually as I'm not seeing how this is explicitly notable. Asking for his academia analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. three major books is enough for academic notability  DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This person is sufficiently notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, though relying on academics to prop up lawyers because they've been published is relying on three groups of victimizers ruining the country, IMHO. He's at least as notable as an axe murderer, so keep. // Fra nkB 21:00, 10 May 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.