Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Bronin


 * 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. Even taking into account the limited quality of the keep arguments, there is enough to persuade me that deletion would not be correct. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sara Bronin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: Sara does not meet WP:GNG as these are mostly trivial university mentions. Also, I have reason to believe the creator of this page is closely affiliated with the subject at hand. – 323 MU (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep - h-index of 17 should be sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC —Мандичка YO 😜 07:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Her GScholar h-index is 6: . James500 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, the claim of h-index of 17 is wrong. GS h-index is 6 and WoS h-index is 3 – more comment in my !vote appearing below. Agricola44 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC).


 * strong keep - membership in American Law Institute should satisfy WP:PROF 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Jafrogg (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — Jafrogg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * strong keep - member has satisfied three of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Rin1010 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — Rin1010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * strong keep - subject in question has satisfied criteria by co-creating the Oxonian Review at University of Oxford WP:BIO2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Rin1010 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - user Rin1010 is a sockpuppet of Jafrogg and IP address 67.221.75.52. This is a clear manipulation of Wikipedia rules and this article should be deleted. Sara is simply not notable. Sorry, fails WP:ACADEMIC – 323 MU (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - not a sockpuppet account. Probably another individual working at the same large institution. Rin1010 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment is not an admin, and should not be posting block notices or sockpuppet notices on user's pages. All users should ignore the erroneously posted messages. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * agree on procedure, but these accounts have strong signs of being meat puppets. Agricola44 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Comment. I struck out the second "strong keep" from Rin1010. Please only leave a single "keep" or "delete" comment in AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on possible meat puppet activity several "keeps" above are new single-purpose accounts and have been tagged. Agricola44 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep Passes WP:NACADEMIC, specifically #2 and #3- for the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Quick inspection indicates a very problematic article: (1) created by a now-blocked SPA at same institution and heavily edited since then by anon IPs from same institution – WP:COI often clouds judgement of notability, (2) sources are almost entirely web ephemera or non-published documents (e.g. from her institution) – the only WP:RS seems to be her wedding announcement in NYT, (3) comments above vastly overstate the WP:PROF c3 aspects e.g. while ALI does seem to limit their number of members, it seems to be a dues-paying, membership-based working professional organization, with new members being nominated by already-members (like a country club) and I don't see that Bronin is a fellow or some such of this organization (note that the above comparison to NAS is way out of context), (4) the case for WP:PROF c1 is also vastly overstated above – Bronin only has a few articles in mainstream law reviews and WoS shows citations of 11, 10, and 3 (h-index 3). All-in-all Dr. Bronin's accomplishments are in-line with a fairly young-in-career scholar. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete. Low h-index and a clutch of very minor architectural awards don't add up to a pass of WP:PROF to me, despite holding a full professorship at a good university. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Her h index is not particularly low. Law is a very low citation field. London School of Economics says the average h index of a (full) law professor is 2.8, which is less than half what GScholar has for her. I don't see a h index of 6 as a grounds for deletion. Prima facie it is much better than average. James500 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my argument about low h-indexes. Having a low h-index is not itself grounds for deletion. But it is a lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. These numbers are so small that even having double the average is not "much better than average" and is not evidence of anything much. We need positive evidence of notability to keep the article, and the low citation count shuts off one avenue for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not support (WP:PROF). Low hindex. Considering that Sara Bronin has been heavily edited by IPs from the same location at the University of Connecticut, it does not warrant inclusion in the English Wikipedia. W i k i 92 man  (Talk/Stalk) 09:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I am less sure about whether her academic credentials mean she passes or doesn't pass WP:PROF, since I am not an academic, I do see sources indicating she's a mover and shaker, particularly in Connecticut, notable with sources such as this in-depth write up. She lives in and has helped restore a historic house which "won top honors in AIA Connecticut's Alice Washburn Awards for traditional Connecticut residential architecture". She is a major player in whether the city of Hartford -- a large-sized city in Connecticut and the state's capital, gets a baseball stadium. Her photo is in CTNow. Her article on the subject of solar rights was cited by 58. She is quoted as an authority regarding energy policy and law. Essentially she straddles different worlds -- law, architecture, academia, public policy, energy, historic conservation, plus her husband might run for mayor, with enough references in my view to meet the WP:GNG, although the current article needs some work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "Spotlight on Sara Bronin" does focus on her, but it is a blog. Most of what you cited are about community issues covered in local news outlets (e.g. the "CTNow" piece) and/or have only a few quotes from her. I don't think anyone here has argued that Bronin is not well-known in her community and I doubt that you are really arguing that factors like whether her husband has a future run for mayor are relevant – such things are simply not the crux of WP notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Reply. It is not simply that she is "well known in her community" but is clearly a force in Hartford with the historical preservation and zoning issues. But overall, it is many things -- being a Rhodes scholar, her research into a relatively new area, energy sprawl, with her articles such as this one, her book on Historic Preservation Law, she is profiled in the Hartford Business Journal, she is a major factor in whether Hartford gets a baseball stadium, (read the article -- not just a few quotes but it talks extensively about her, meeting the in-depth requirement). Her home restoration is extensively profiled in a Connecticut magazine (one can 'click' through to see it). In any one area, such as architecture, or law, or scholarship, maybe she's light, but the sum total of her accomplishments, in my view, puts her into the WP:GNG category.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get your argument: many factors that do not, by themselves, indicate notability, but nevertheless add-up to a collective body that does indicate notability. My trouble is that most of those factors are either of a local nature (whether Hartford gets a BBall team), or are clearly outside the purview of notability. For example, you just cited an article of hers on SSRN, which is an unrefereed pre-print server (no weight towards notability). I think the honest assessment is that this person is very visible in her community (as evidenced by a number of pieces in local news publications) and has an academic impact on par with "the average professor". Best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree; while some people may think Hartford is just a "local town" or "community", it is the state capitol with a metro population of over a million; that she is an important force there, for me, suggests she is notable. In addition, she is profiled here. Plus her marriage was reported in the New York Times here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Another thing: there are instances when she uses all of her different disciplines in one project, such as being the lead attorney for a vast development project in Hartford, developing buildings with renewable energy built in; here, she writes about her project as a legal case study. Plus she has a considerable publishing history since 2008 with over 200+ citations as shown here. What I'm saying about the straddling of disciplines -- this handyman thinks it is cool.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the additional points you've now raised, FWIW, 200+ GS citations (h-index = 6) is unremarkable. So are the spotlight article from her school graduation and her Vanderbilt Law Review article that has been cited 3 whole times. As I said above, her NYT marriage announcement is the only real WP:RS. I'm not a handyman, but I think she's cool too – just not notable according to our rules. Agricola44 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC).
 * I disagree. Clearly notable, overall, taking into account everything. We'll just have to agree to disagree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you still think that the universe of factors you've cited, each one of which has been shown to be non-notable on its own, somehow magically create a notable collective, then, yes, we'll just have to disagree. Agricola44 (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete' Fails on reliable sources relating to her law career: #'s 1, 7-22, 26, 30 are not third-party. Others have commented on her academic standing, and I concur that there doesn't seem to be enough there for wp:academics. There is a mention of her in 22, 25, 28, 29, with some proof that she sits on a local planning board. #31 and #32 are that she married and her husband might run for mayor - no notability for her there. #s 2-5 are about a local architectural society award for having renovated her home - nice, but probably not enough for architectural notability alone. LaMona (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - Two "strong keep"s here appear to be accounts that were created on the date of the speedy tag or shortly after this AfD was issued, and both have edited only the page in question as well as !voting here: Special:Contributions/Jafrogg, and Special:Contributions/Rin1010. This could be evidence of wp:sock or coordinated editing. This is also mentioned above, but I noticed it as well, and think it is potentially a direct violation of WP policies on editing and accounts. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep:- I believe notability in this case needs to be based on the region/counties where the subject of the article resides or based and the available media there. What is important is the reliability of the sources and verifiability. She doesn't have to be covered in the "New York Times" and "India Times" to be considered notable. In addition, been a past President of the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association and elected member of American Law Institute adds to her notability only that both are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC . WP:COI is not a ground for deletion either, it only means that the page creator and any possible socks associated with them are not familiar with our policies and guideline and the best way of handling them is to keep them aware and notify them of possible violations. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of your reasons for "keep" have already been refuted above, for example "local fame" is not notable and the American Law Institute is a working professional organization, not an honorary like NAS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
 * I have no idea of why you directed such a non sequitur comment to me because I had not in anyway compare American Law Institute to National Academy of Science and nobody insinuated that they are the same. I only said that been a past President of the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association and elected member of American Law Institute adds to her notability only that both are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC . You may want to point us to where the notability guideline said that sources in ones region/counties are insufficient to establish notability, where the same guideline emphasized that sources in one's own region/counties are unreliable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, it was insinuated above that ALI was comparable to NAS (you may want to read previous comments, especially noting that ALI is a dues-paying professional organization and that membership does not add to notability). As to your second part, we simply don't weigh "local fame" (local/neighborhood newspapers, local/state organizations, etc) very heavily toward notability, otherwise a large fraction of the world's population would be "notable" in some way. Consequently, I think the burden is really on the proponents to justify why we should make an exception in this case and I don't see that such arguments have been convincing yet. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Comment. Bronin in my view meets the WP:ACADEMIC #7 and #8. Here is the guideline:
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * Regarding point #8, she founded the Oxonian Review of Books and was senior editor of the Yale Law & Policy Review and more recently managing editor of the The Next American City magazine (note: search using her maiden name, Sara Galvan).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Oxonian Review is a student-run webzine and does not count as "a major well-established academic journal" (PROF c8). Yale Law Review is likewise a student-run publication and NAC is a webzine that she was managing editor of while she was a student (per your link). I think again that, while these are all very interesting, they do not clear the bar of notability that has been established over many years of AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Oxonian Review is associated with Oxford University, one of Britain's two premier universities. Ditto, Yale Law & Policy Review with Yale University, a highly prestigious American university. Bronin's credentials are impressive by any measure. In the legal world, the Yale Law & Policy Review has tremendous cache in the legal world, with past contributors including Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas; Vice President Al Gore; Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Cyrus Vance; Senators Bill Frist, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and Arlen Specter; Ambassador John Negroponte; and Professors Richard Epstein, Harold Koh, Robert Post, and Cass Sunstein. Bronin was an editor with this prestigious publication. Seems clearly to meet requirements for the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly a notable group of alumni, but the salient point remains that these are student-run publications and that the editors are "student editors". I'm going to try to sign-off now before you continue WP:NOTGETTINGIT in upper case. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC).
 * The fact that Yale Law & Policy Review is edited by students may be irrelevant as that is normal for American law reviews, even the most prestigious. Unless I am mistaken, the articles in the journals are written by people with credentials. The section "notable articles", for example, cites an article by Richard Neely in 1984, who was, according to our article on him, at the time a judge of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, not a student. The fact that the Oxonian Review is run by students will be relevant as that is not normal for European reviews. James500 (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:James500 is certainly correct about American law reviews; students edit them, professors compete to get articles in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * More to the point is the fact that "making" it onto law review is like "making" a starting varsity team, a status awarded for significant academic achievement.  Making law review is something that stays on a resume for a lifetime, like clerking for an Appellate or Supreme Court Justice.  That said, it is not what is intended by criterion #8.  Editing a major academic journal is an honor awarded to a mid or late career academic in recognition of substantive and significant scholarly contributions.  Editing law review does not get you automatically past WP:PROFESSOR under rule #8.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then criteria 8 should be rewritten so that it says what it was intended to mean instead of saying something quite different. James500 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. It reads: 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." But it is brought of proof as an academic.  If a law school editor opts for a career as as a lawyer, the student editorship does not establish notability.  Bunin would have to be asked to edit a journal as part of her post-student career to meet #8.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * keep She isn't notable in any one category, or for any one thing, but the sources show notability for an interesting carer blending law, architecture and historic preservation, and similarly straddling community activism, scholarship and private practice.  Cumulatively, I think she passes  WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your reasoning is exactly the same as Tomwsulcer's above: numerous factors, each one of which is non-notable on its own, somehow magically create a notable collective. This is WP:ILIKEIT based on the opinion that Bronin is "interesting". Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC).
 * No, it is WP:GNG, based on the fact that my search instantly and easily turned up multiple articles in reliable places like the Hartford Courant. These were articles represented "significant coverage", not trivial mentions, although none of the ones I read was a full-length profile in Vanity Fair. Still,  Connecticut Magazine  is notable enough; I keep a copy on a table in the window of my family’s Civil War-era brownstone overlooking Bushnell Park -  (I only wish!)  The articles I refer to were substantive coverage of her work in historic preservation.  Moreover, the facts on her childhood, education, and career are reliably sourced, even though those sources are mostly either passing mentions or do not count towards notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The GNG rule is as follows (I bolded one phrase for emphasis):
 * "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability...."


 * And that is my argument in this case, that in any one area such as academics, she is not notable, but overall, combining her numerous accomplishments, she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * is not just getting it and I wonder why. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable award-winning academic with good coverage. I agree especially with the WP:GNG quote above. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2015 (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.