Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TaxProf Blog


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While consensus shifted away from deletion outright as the discussion progressed and socks were outed, late !votes for merge leaves the community's ultimate assessment of notability unclear. signed,Rosguill talk 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

TaxProf Blog

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The page fails WP:GNG.

References check:

1. No “Tax Prof Blog” name is found on page 114 (where it is supposed to be). Even if it is there, it is definitely just mentioned and doesn’t contribute to notability.

2. Very short mention – no in-depth coverage.

3. There is not even a mention of TaxProf Blog on page 8 of the book.

4. I wasn’t able to verify this book.

5. Seems to be just one name among 100 in the list of blogs. Doesn’t contribute to Wikipedia notability.

6. A short paragraph – not in-depth coverage.

7. An opinion of Paul Caron, the founder of the Tax Prof Blog. Not an eligible source.

8. The blog itself. MartinPict (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Just a comment, as I don't really care about this article one way or the other, but it's pages 488–489 that are at issue, not page 114 (which is the volume number). There we can read "When the U.S. News potential ranking was announced, the responses were numerous. For example, Dean Paul Caron’s popular TaxProf Blog published over 20 entries on the report." I leave others to judge if this brief mention is enough to confer notability. Athel cb (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep.
 * First, analysis of references is flawed.
 * 1. Nominator has confused volume number for page number.
 * 3. Yes, there is. Not sure if nominator has confused page numbers again or what, but I can see it in front of me.
 * 4. "I wasn't able to verify this book." Not sure why, it's right here.
 * 6. Incorrect description of source. Significant coverage is not a word count, it is content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This 151-word reference is a direct and detailed description of the subject.
 * 7. Incorrect description of source. It's a feature of the subject on law.com, an RS source.
 * Corrected Source Analysis: The article contains three significant treatments of the source in WP:RS (Canadian Tax Journal, law.com, and the Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law), plus several additional short mentions of the source in RS that are sufficient to fill-out details on the subject, including being named one of the top legal blogs by ABA Journal and separately established as the fifth most-trafficked legal blog.
 * Second, though an essay, our generally accepted WP:NMAG establishes that an outlet that "has made significant impact in its field or other area" and "has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works" is usually notable. The most cursory check just on JSTOR (which is not even a very thorough source for legal journals) finds the site referenced in more than three-dozen scholarly journals in the last five years while a search on Google Books shows the outlet cited  in more than 25 books, the majority from academic publishers. Chetsford (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC); edited 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Canadian Tax Journal's article is an example of significant coverage. It just talks about how Caron blogs daily and posts some articles in a specific niche, i.e., American law. I'm checking other sources. US-Verified (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I've got to agree with the source analysis, they just don't give notability. Simple mentions at most aren't enough, rest are about as useless for notability standards. I can't find anything, other than the site itself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Symposium linked for Item 4 appears only as a landing page, I can't open the document, it appears un-related, talking about law libraries, not about blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I can't open the document" Per WP:OFFLINE, "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." "it appears un-related" A symposium about legal research is definitely related to the subject of legal media and this specific presentation deals with the subject to a sufficient level of depth. I'd strongly encourage you to choose to read the source. Chetsford (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not paying to access it nor can I get to a legal library with access. I'm trusting the source analysis above however; if you have access, how much of the Symposium report is dedicated to this blog? Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it is, the other sources are non-useful from what I can tell. One iffy source and a bunch of useless ones, don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm not paying to access it nor can I get to a legal library with access." So, to clarify, you haven't seen the source and the OP hasn't seen the source. And, due to personal inconvenience, you're not going to attempt to access it. Rather, you're going to assume it's a bad source and !vote Delete. (FYI, in general, our modus operandi in such circumstances is to "Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source.".) Chetsford (talk)
 * Correct. Based on the discussion below, it does not appear to be a useful source. Even if it is, it's one source, the rest appear about as un-helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to pay for me to read it, be my guest. I'm not spending my money on it. Frankly, I don't expect much to be found. And it's at best one source, the rest are very trivial mentions. Unless it's a detailed 10 page report on the history of the blog, it still doesn't help us hit notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "If you want to pay for me to read it, be my guest." Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a volunteer service. We don't typically pay for !votes. "Unless it's a detailed 10 page report" I've been involved in hundreds of AfDs and this is, certainly, the first time I've ever heard that any source less than a "detailed 10 page report" is insufficient to meet our SIGCOV requirements. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you respond to everything we say? BLUDGEON is a thing here as well. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per @Chetsford. It's a law blog that has been covered fairly well by legal sources.
 * TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment. On the Chetsford's arguments:

1. Nominator has confused volume number for page number. Even if I made that mistake, it is poorly technical. Chetsford still didn't show how that source was "in-depth coverage of TaxProfBlog".

3. Yes, there is. Not sure if nominator has confused page numbers again or what, but I can see it in front of me. I'd be excited to see that mention and how it makes the TaxProfBlog any notable for Wikipedia

4. "I wasn't able to verify this book." Not sure why, it's right here. Great, would you, @Chetsford, be so kind and discover for the Wikipedia community what the book wrote on TaxProfBlog and what page exactly?

6. Incorrect description of source. Significant coverage is not a word count, it is content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". This 151-word reference is a direct and detailed description of the subject. It is still a short paragraph - there is no universe where you can call a cat "an elephant".

7. Incorrect description of source. It's a feature of the subject on law.com, an RS source. Anyone who reads that source, will understand it is an interview or an opinion piece.

As for TulsaPoliticsFan - it is a stochastic comment. It would be nice to hear more arguments here, in particular to my detailed report. Bottom line: we do not have any significant and in-depth coverage here as WP:GNG requires.

MartinPict (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 01:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've reviewed the Canadian Tax Journal article. It explains what a blog is, tells us how long this blog has been around, and advises us it's used in the US by law professors. It's also hoped it stays around for a while. The thing takes up a barely a third of the page. A RS, yes, but it's trivial coverage. So we have 5, maybe 6 trivial mentions of this blog, some in RS. That's barely at GNG. Still a !delete for me. And please don't ping me, I've spent too much time on this kerfuffle already. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment "we do not have any significant and in-depth coverage here" This appears to be incorrect. We have three RS that meet the conventional definition of SIGCOV (Canadian Tax Journal, law.com, and the Symposium on the Impact of Technology on Law), supplemented by additional RS of supplementary character. It is true that this does not meet the ... ahem, novel ... argument that SIGCOV requires a minimum of "10 pages". I have to respectfully reject the argument that SIGCOV requires 10+ pages per source as inconsistent with our policies and guidelines, as well as any convention or precedent that exists anytime, anywhere, ever, at any point, on WP. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was using it as an over-the-top example. I digress. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is an unfair assessment of my comment. Seconding another users analysis is not a stochastic comment. I happen to agree with @Chetsford's stance that coverage of a legal source in other legal sources combined with the fact the blog is cited by scholars meets the notability guidelines. The fact I didn't re-type out their analysis isn't a reason to disregard the fact I agree with them. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

*Delete - I agree with Oaktree B's comments. To be honest, the notability is very weak, and readers would be better served if we spend our time and energy on a topic that is actually notable, such as the founder of this website, Paul L. Caron.


 * - Ref #1 essentially states, For example, Dean Paul Caron's popular TaxProf Blog published over 20 entries on the report This is all I could find when I downloaded the file. It's not really significant coverage.


 * - Ref #2 is simply a mention.


 * - Ref #3's coverage in the book is insignificant. I will expand on this later.


 * - I can't comment on Ref #4, as it was a symposium and I don't have access to it. However, I suspect it would focus more on the professor, the blog's founder, rather than the blog itself.


 * - The article in Ref #5 isn't selective enough to be considered "significant coverage". It covered 100 blogs, all related to the legal field. Should we create 100 pages about these minor blogs? I think a list would serve better.


 * - I've already commented on Ref #6 above.


 * - Ref #7 is a Q&A session with Professor Caron, which, at best, is a primary source.


 * - Ref #8 is a backlink to the topic's website. US-Verified (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Book: I'm including all the mentions of this blog in the cited book (I've access) below:
 * Paul Caron of the TaxProf Blog analyzed the data and concluded that the proportion of law school applicants with scores above 160 shrunk by 35 percent between 2010 and 2017.
 * The book probably cites Paul Caron and his website TaxProf Blog more than any other source. Caron’s blog is a must-read if you are interested in this topic. And Again, if you are interested in this topic, you should definitely read their websites Legal Evolution (Henderson), the Legal Whiteboard and TaxProf Blog (Organ), Excess of Democracy blog (Muller), and Computational Legal Studies blog (Katz).
 * That's it. It is clearly not significant enough. US-Verified (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I don't have access to it. However, I suspect" Guesses as to what a source might contain is not the foundation for a policy-based argument in the absence of actually viewing the source.
 * "Ref #7 is a Q&A session with Professor Caron" This contains significant expository coverage of the outlet itself separate from Caron's responses. I'm not sure if you were maybe making guesses on the content based on the title again?
 * "The article in Ref #5 isn't selective enough to be considered "significant coverage". I double-checked and it looks like "selectivity" isn't one of the criteria in our WP:SIGCOV guideline. And I'm not sure why the ABA Journal would not be selective enough in any case as it's unambiguously RS.
 * "I've already commented on Ref #6 above." Perhaps I missed it, but I don't believe you did. This is a 151-word treatment of the blog in a peer-reviewed journal. Chetsford
 * Also, could you address our generally accepted WP:NMAG essay that an outlet that "has made significant impact in its field or other area" and "has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works" is usually notable? As noted above, this has been cited in more than 50 academic journals and books from academic publishers in the last five years. Chetsford (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I re-checked the sources, too, and found that this blog is indeed cited in some academic sources, but let's not forget that literally anything can be cited that way in a certain context, i.e. it's not an indicator. As for the notability of the subject, for which we have clear criteria, it does not seem to me to have been established by the sources. Sources 1,2,5, and even 6 are trivial or too short mentions, 7 and 8 aren't independent, and 3 and 4 are offline sources. As for WP:OFFLINE, this suggests not only "assuming good faith", but also being able to show the community scans/photos of the source in question. Such a suggestion was voiced in this discussion but ignored. Suitskvarts (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "As for WP:OFFLINE, this suggests not only "assuming good faith", but also being able to show the community scans/photos of the source in question." That's incorrect. It says to AGF but that the provider may be able to provide a scan, however, obviously our WP:COPYVIO applies. It does, however, place the onus on the editor challenging the source to "Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy". That suggestion was offered and it was ignored. I offer it again. An editor who is unwilling to AGF or to visit their local library could, as a last resort, verify that the treatment in this source occupies a full four pages by searching the snippet view at Google Books, though, of course they would be unable to verify the specifics of its content. An editor unwilling to undertake even that minimal effort is probably not registering a GF !vote. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Per request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi. See longer note momentarily. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is the guideline that every topic must meet. WP:NMAG is an essay, no longer a community-vetted guideline. This discussion has been bludgeoned by the article creator. It appears that they have some sort of WP:COI, and their most recent edits (work) in June are related to the TaxProf Blog, which is concerning. We need more independent opinions and less bludgeoning by Chetsford. 5.42.92.163 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: !Voting on this AfD was the first ever edit originating from this IP. Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Closing admin note: Per request of at User_talk:Star_Mississippi, I am relisting this following restoration. This AfD was sock infested (not known at time of closure, no one is contesting the close) and with what we know now, I probably would have relisted it. History of the socking is at Sockpuppet investigations/MartinPict. Chetsford requested an N/C close, which I was willing to do noting that an established editor could revisit it -- but I feel it better to establish a clean consensus here & now vs. a bandaid solution and potentially a new AfD. On the merits of the website, I am neutral. I leave it to someone else if sock strikes are needed as with the small template, I get muddled in syntax.  Star   Mississippi  01:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Well now that the sock was removed, I'm still not showing notability. Trivial mentions for what seems to be a well-loved thing in the legal community. I was hoping for a redirect, but there doesn't seem to be any viable target. Maybe the community that uses the blog will try to get some of the journals above to publish a more extensive article and we can revisit this later. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Oaktree. The Future of Law Libraries article, which is the longest of the RS in the aticle, is four pages long. Your comment seems to indicate you don't believe four pages of journal coverage constitutes SIGCOV. It might help us to identify additional sources that would satisfy you if you could be more specific as to your unique SIGCOV requirements. You previously said nothing is SIGCOV "unless it's a detailed 10 page report", but then said you were just kidding. I feel like we're getting a moving target so if I could politely nail you down to something I may be able to satisfy you. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no further comments on this matter. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to Paul Caron with minor rewrite. Keep See notes in chart below. Very borderline GNG for the blog, but given the number of times their work is cited, and their other work (some of which is in here) the blogger seems to meet WP:AUTHOR.1 easily and likely WP:ACADEMIC. Likely a single article for the two is sufficient, and if ever necessary a split would be easy. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thorough assessment, Siroxo. Regarding, The Future of Law Libraries, Canon is only mentioned twice in the four page article on the outlet; would that contribute to Canon's notability? Also, you say you "can't see" the law.com article. I can see it and can affirm that this is more than a citation mention of the site. Also, you reference "the blogger" and "their work is cited." I think you're misunderstanding. There is not "a blogger". This is an outlet with many writers. Indeed, as of the datestamp, the first two articles on the site are by people other than Canon.  Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think @Chetsford is probably right that a move would give Paul Caron too much credit. It's like SCOTUSBlog, somewhere between a legal newspaper and a law review; the word "blog" is kinda misleading and implies a level of informality and singular ownership that isn't actually present. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding The Future of Law Libraries article the information I can find is via Google books (or other less detailed sources) which shows Caron as an author, which would suggest it's not an independent source. As to whether it establishes notability for Caron, that would be more on the scholar or author angle, depending on how cited (or reviewed) this piece is and so on. I will update the above table to reflect that it provides sigcov, but as it's not independent it won't really affect the discussion. &mdash;siro&chi;o 21:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am not going to try to figure out what on earth has been going on in this discussion. But in any event, even if the article subject did not meet the GNG I would still argue for inclusion per WP:NMAG (which despite lacking formal guideline status provides a standard more appropriately tailored to our purpose of being an encyclopedia). But it does meet the GNG, so that point is moot. Indeed I suspect one might struggle to find a single US or Canadian bar journal that has not provided some coverage of TaxProf Blog at some point in the past 19 years. At any rate, we seem to be past the point of haggling over sources, but just in case I will note nontrivial coverage at The CPA Journal and Tax Notes, among others. -- Visviva (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Visviva. While the TAX NOTES source is not independent, The CPA Journal is and does indeed seem to get us over the GNG threshold. I've added it to the table and updated my !vote above. As this discussion shows, It's taken a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to find two independent sources, as so many of them rely on Caron's words. We do have to be careful about not relying on the subject (or someone closely tied to the subject) in order to maintain NPOV, so I appreciate your sourcing. While we do technically have enough for GNG, if you have other sources it would definitely benefit to add them here or in the article. &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess we're on the same page, but I would have to quibble a bit here. Tax Notes is an independent (and AFAIK fairly well-respected) periodical in the field, and the author Warren Rojas is a journalist of decent repute. Tax Notes is normally buried deep behind a paywall so I included the convenience link to the PDF on lawprofessorblogs.com, but I don't think there's an independence issue there. I know it has become fashionable to discount all coverage that draws on interviews with the article subject but a) Caron is not the article subject and b) I think this practice is questionable under both the GNG's definition of independence and the relevant WP:OR footnote which states that whether an interview is a primary source "depend[s] on context". The general dissensus about any bright-line rule in this 2018 discussion of the question (possibly the most recent?) is illustrative. In this case, IMO Rojas' independent reportorial judgment, context and analysis combine to make this a cromulent source. But anyway, here are a couple of cites that go more to significance than sourceability, but would have IMO some relevance to article-worthiness: Christopher M. Fairman describing the blog as "lauded as a must-read in the legal community and general blogosphere" and a 2023 Florida Tax Review article calling it "widely recognized in the academic tax community as the leading tax oriented blog". On a similar note, the ABA Journal's "Blawg 100" appears to be pretty widely cited in articles and has featured TaxProf Blog on numerous occasions -- the blog was inducted into the Blawg 100 Hall of Fame (reader view required) in 2013. -- Visviva (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you're saying in terms of interviews, and have no reason to doubt the quality of Tax Notes or Rojas' work. This source in general does seem excellent, indeed. My quibble is basically with the fact that the entirety of coverage of "TaxProf Blog" in this piece derives from Caron's input. If the piece were more widely about TaxProf with this small input from Caron, then I'd agree that the fact that Rojas conducted an interview of Caron would not prevent the "independence", but it's not the case there. I guess that's my personal "bright line" of independence: whether it seems the bulk of information about the subject in question was sourced via someone close to the subject. I don't merely decide on the presence of an interview. To look at it more broadly, if the bulk of coverage about a subject relies directly on the words of people involved, I can't see a way in which Wikipedia can preserve NPOV. Anyways, seeing your user page I will respect your desire to keep discussion short, and will not presume anything of it if you choose not to reply. &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment I've created page on Paul L. Caron, so I'm changing my vote from delete to redirect or selective merge as appropriate, in accordance with WP:ATD. The coverage is mostly related to Caron, so it's better to cover the blog within his biography rather than creating a permanent stub. I'd also encourage those who voted delete to change their votes to redirect. Thank you. US-Verified (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. I still don't see a consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Redirect and merge to Paul L. Caron. Thanks to @US-Verified for making this improvement. Otherwise, keep per @Visviva's comments and links. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge as suggested above. Good work User:US-Verified for improving the situation. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - GNG is met via the Law.com, Canadian Tax Journal, and the CPA Journal sources. However, WP:NWEB also advises us that When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. As the blog is widely recognized in the academic tax community as the leading tax oriented blog, its signifiance on education or society is indisputable.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2023 (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.