Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Vladeck


 * 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) f  e  minist  13:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Vladeck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find suitable sources to support an article for this person. Cited sources in present article are to a marriage register, several "On the topic of XYZ, Stephen Vladeck said..." type news articles where the subject is cited for a brief opinion, posts by subject on a law blog, and his faculty listing at the U Texas School of Law. There is no coverage of the person himself. ValarianB (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I started this article. Vladeck is a highly respected young academic, and qualifies for inclusion under WP:ACADEMIC.  Nominator's nomination states "There is no coverage of the person himself".  Nominator  did you mean to imply we can't have a BLP on individuals when we don't know biographical details about them, like date of birth, place of birth, high school, children, etc.?  In this essay I offer the example of False Geber, an individual from before the invention of the printing press, when copying a book meant the very time-consuming transcription of every single word.  False Geber published a new, scientifically important work under the name of a well-respected Arab scientist.  Issac Asimov thought he was one of the 1000 most important scientists of all time.  But we know nothing about his life, not his place of birth, religion, nationality, occupation.  When someone measures up to our notability criteria, the lack of biographical details should not be seen as a justification for deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit strawmanish to suggest a false narrative of my nomination argument and then knock it down. Minutiae and vital statistics aren't being sought here, just some form of in-depth coverage for a biographical subject to justify an article. I do not see any of the 9 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC being met by the subject. The student awards and positions appear to be excluded from consideration, per Notability_(academics), so the subject would have to satisfy WP:BIO if he fails the academics guideline. Also, I have no opinion on the personal essay, and do not consider it.ValarianB (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Criteria 7 says: "7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Vladeck is one of the leading non-governmental counter-terrorism commentators.  His opinion is one of the first sought, on controversial cases.  WRT attributing strawman arguments to you.  If I had acted as if I knew what you meant, and attributed a clearly false interpretation to your comments, that would be a strawman argument.  If I ask a good faith question as to you whether you meant a particular interpretation, that is not a strawman argument, as all you have to do is clarify what you really meant.  No harm, no foul.  FWIW, if I honestly misinterpret your comments, in good faith, I don't think that should be characterized as a strawman argument, either.  Is it still your position  an article on an individual requires "some form of in-depth coverage" of mundane milestones?  Geo Swan (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since that was never my argument in the first place, the answer should be self-evident. As for criteria #7, the criteria is "if the person is frequently quoted". One is not frequent. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I take your assertion you think you were clear, at face value. Could you please take at face value that I asked my question, to clarify your meaning, because I did not find your meaning clear?  I am confused by your assertion "As for criteria #7, the criteria is "if the person is frequently quoted". One is not frequent."  You strongly implied you did your best to comply with WP:BEFORE in your initial nomination, when you asserted "Cannot find suitable sources to support an article for this person...".  You did try to comply with BEFORE, didn't you?  The link to google news shows over a thousand references, including several that quoted him the day before you initiated this AFD.  This Newsweek article quoted him six times.  Finally, since your answer, above, didn't address this question, I am going to repeat it: "Is it still your position an article on an individual requires "some form of in-depth coverage" of mundane milestones?"  Geo Swan (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep there are two possibilities--notability as an academic under WP:PROF, and notability as a commentator using the GNG. I added his academic papers and books--all of which have been frequently cited. I think that clearly shows his influence as a scholar, and no further analysis u is required.   Not that it's a formal criterion, but the formal recognition from a third party, is his appointment by a leading school as full professor  (there might be full professors in law schools appointed for other aspects of their legal work than scholarship, so this does not universally apply.)  He probably meets WP:PROF by coauthorship of two widely used textbooks, as shown by their multiple editions.  It's true the student awards are irrelevant to notability, and I edited the article to remove award-winning" from the lede. I suspect that a proper search would show he meets the GNG also, as I can't imagine that his widespread commentary on various media has gone unnoticed. Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do, not by virtue of being born.  Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability. Discussions of his commentary would do that.   DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Besides his legal scholarship (which is likely enough for notability), he appears all the time as a commentator, either quoted or in op-eds. Here's WaPo, a Bloomberg podcast, Miami Herald, USA Today, Politico, LA Times, and CNN (which identifies him a as a "Legal Contributor"). And here's The Atlantic commenting on Vladeck's writing without directly quoting him. I don't think there's a serious question about notability here. agt x  15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - prolific scholar, full professor at a top tier law school. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2017 (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.