Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Rascoff


 * 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   delete. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Rascoff

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Often quoted in the press, but I haven't found significant coverage of the subject. Seems to fail PROF. Author contested my PROD, suggested AFD, so here we are. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The referenced NY Observer article puts him in a small group of future Supreme Court candidates, alongside Noah Feldman, Kermit Roosevelt III, Rachel Barkow, and others. I think that merits notablity. --bender235 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That NY Observer article mentions him in only sentence. And just says that he is a "vivacious [law firm] associate", who is one of a number of lawyers with great resumes whose "friends and colleagues" speculate as to their prospects "for the "Big Bench".  I wonder whether that is perhaps somewhat short of what wp:GNG has in mind, when it calls for independent, significant RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No suggestion that he passes WP:PROF on the basis of his teaching. Being an Oxford graduate or a law clerk isn't proof of notability by itself.  A one-sentence mention in one long article about people who in 20/30/40 years time might be appointed to SCOTUS does not equate to multiple secondary sources or substantial depth of coverage in a given source.  Unless more sources turn up to show that he passes WP:BASIC or WP:PROF, my inclination is to delete. BencherliteTalk 13:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Uncertain at this point.  I'm open to being convinced, but do we have any arguments for keeping that are other than "otherstuffexists"?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument wasn't "other stuff exists", the argument was "Rascoff has been ranged in a distinctive group of influential American jurists". That is, in fact, the only argument. If that's not enough for the people voting here, so be it.
 * As a matter of fact, in my opinion every SCOTUS law clerk is notable enough to have an article. But maybe not everyone agrees with me.
 * BTW: Each of you may check that SCOTUS law clerk list. If Rascoff does not meet notability criteria, you might as well AfD three dozen other articles. --bender235 (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Supreme Court clerks include many top-notch just-graduated (or now, more likely a year or two out of law school, with an intermittent lower-court clerkship under their belt) law grads. And that many of them become notable, in time.  But I also noticed that a high percentage of those on the list don't have articles.  Also, they get those positions because they were top-of-their-class level students; I don't know that we're ready to deem all # 1-in-their-class graduate school grads from top schools article-worthy.  Doing well on law school exams, and a year or two clerkship prior to the SC, is laudable.  But its not the sort of stuff that we look for in notability discussions -- it doesn't reflect any notable output (though many of them have at least written a law school comment or note).  And as clerks, depending on the Justice, they may just do research and write drafts of opinions.  WP policy generally requires something more -- whether reflected in RS coverage of things they actually do, or in sufficient academic writing or the like.  Is there something more that I'm missing with this candidate, that meets those criteria?


 * Final point -- you refer to him as a jurist, but I don't see that, though I do see a background of law clerk, law firm associate, police department director, and assistant law professor. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one note: the "high percentage of those on the [SCOTUS law clerk] list [who] don't have articles" does not indicate they're not notable. It's like with these constellation star lists (e.g., List of stars in Orion, List of stars in Sagittarius, ...), where every entry deserves an article, too.
 * My point is: Rascoff is one of the more notable SCOTUS law clerks (which is why NY Observer hand-picked him as one of the elite jurists of the country), but even if he wasn't his SCOTUS law clerk status should merit notability in my POV. --bender235 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you succeed in leading a change to the notability guidelines to support that notion, the subject of this discussion might be considered notable then. But for right now, what I think you need to do is find some reliable sources that have significant coverage of him. There are very many fine, intelligent people who have simply not garnered enough attention or had sufficient impact in their field to meet the bar set for biographies of living people, and I think that is the case here. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bender -- I wonder whether your description doesn't perhaps slightly inflate matters You again refer to Rascoff as a "jurist", when actually he was just a clerk, a couple of years out of law school.  And you say that the NY Observer "handpicked him as one of the elite jurists of the country", while all it actually did was write one mere sentence mentioning him, in which it indicated that his "friends and colleagues" speculated as to his prospects "for the "Big Bench".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I use "jurist" synonymously with "legal scholar", which Rascoff is (he's a law school professor). --bender235 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's fine, although it is usually used in reference to Judges, but the scope of the definition includes any person learned in the law. But I think Epeefleche's question regarding the NY Observer article is relevant here, what is your take on that? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My take is that the NY Observer article mentions Rascoff as "one of a handful of earnest, platinum-résumé’d law geeks whose prospects for the Big Bench [ie. SCOTUS] are the source of constant speculation among friends and colleagues", in a paragraph with Noah Feldman, Richard Primus, David Schizer, and Jennifer Newstead. --bender235 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's only one sentence -- perhaps short of "substantial coverage". Also, I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to take the leap of conferring notability based on what you point out is "speculation among friends and colleagues".  Couldn't they possibly be viewed as other than independent?  And, as non-experts, their speculation is a bit of wp:crystal.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that context, I'm pretty sure "friends and colleagues" does not refer to their poker buddies, but other high-profile jurists. --bender235 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you wouldn't think the word "friends" would mean ... just that. I have trouble understanding their view as being "independent", and we don't generally I believe attribute notability to people based on the views of their friends.  As all of the editors here but you are in agreement that the subject of this article is not notable, I'm not sure why you refer to him still as a "high-profile jurist".  The unanimous conclusion of the other editors appears to be that his one sentence in a NY Observer article, about the views of his friends and colleagues, comes up a bit short of conferring notability.  Also, as to your use of the word jurist, as our wp article makes clear, "Although the word "jurist" can technically be applied to anyone having a thorough knowledge of law, American and Canadian lawyers usually use the word only to refer to a judge."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —

• Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:Prof. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. Happy to change my !vote if someone can show something I may have missed, but I can't see how this meets GNG or wp:prof.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * delete Assistant professor, and the usual informal assumption here is that they are not yet notable unless there is some special factor. Consonant with that, his official bio lists only 3 publications; his legal career was of the nature that his actual contributions are not self-evident. I adding a reference from the NYU Law School magazine--though certainly not an independent source for notability, it is an official publication of the School, & therefore a good source for the nature of his career. As for the automatic notability of Scotus law clerks, I'm open to argument, & might well be sympathetic, , but this is not something we have previously accepted.    DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're sympathetic to the idea of notability for all SCOTUS law clerks, why (in your opinion) does it need a discussion first? Can't we just accept the status quo as some sort of silent consensus? Because there are biographies of people who are notable only for their law clerk work, e.g. Louis Lusky. Whether we (as Wikipedia) accept SCOTUS law clerks as notable does not have to be determined per vote. --bender235 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for DGG, but that would be a significant change. My suggest, if you want to pursue this, would be to start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people). My concern would be that we'd have an unintended effect. But I should point out that we'd still have to require significant coverage in reliable sources, since that's policy, and guidelines or discussions here cannot supersede policy, and I just don't see that in this case. The NY Observer article, for example, is what I would call passing mention. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not correct. Not everything that is deemed notable for Wikipedia has to have "significant coverage". As a matter of fact, only few subjects have that type of coverage. For example, most mathematicians (except for very few, like Terence Tao or Grigori Perelman) have no media coverage at all, but are still notable by Wikipedia standards for winning some scientific award (one might argue that being selected a SCOTUS law clerk is some kind of a "award in legal studies"). --bender235 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, where did I say reliable sources have to be from the media? And can you point to a policy that asserts that significant coverage in reliable sources is not requirement for notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't cite any policy, I just pointed out the fact. There is no coverage for let's say Victor Kolyvagin, but still he is notable for his contributions to mathematics. --bender235 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to Victor Kolyvagin, take another look (and yes, I would have brought it to AFD had I not found what I considered to be significant coverage in reliable sources). Also, you might take a look at OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I think your motives are commendable, and I appreciate your taking the time to discuss these issues, but I do think that we require significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for the subject of articles. We make decisions by consensus informed by policy, so to convince me that it is not required, I'm afraid you'll have to find a policy that says that. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't give me that OTHERCRAPEXISTS bullshit again, we had that argument already. I wasn't pointing at "other crap", but at the mere fact that "coverage" isn't everything. Basically every participant in America's Next Top Model receives more coverage than a Fields Medalist, but that doesn't say anything about their notability. --bender235 (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you are confusing me with Epeefleche. I am sorry if I misunderstand you, but it appears that you are arguing that because other articles exist for which there are no reliable sources cited, this one should stay. I disagree. I also do not know what definition of notability you are using, but the one we use here is WP:N. But I've said enough on this already. Best of luck. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, I still can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, so I'm !voting for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You nominated the article. Your vote automatically is "delete". --bender235 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't voting here, and you asked me to bring it up here when you contested the prod in your edit summary. I've looked for sources, listened to comments, and made my decision. I'm sorry if that somehow offends you. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - clerking for a SCOTUS justice has never been a reason by itself to keep a BLP here, although I think it's at least a factor. I'd like to see that the subject has done a bit more.   I'm willing to change my mind to a "Keep" if I had more information. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2011 (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.