Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Greendorfer

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. Consensus is that his work is not widely cited enough to satisfy the notability criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Greendorfer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable academic. He doesn ot meet WP:PROF, because his work is so little cited. The citations in various news publications do not amount to substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment He is not academic, he is lawyer. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You're using a very narrow definition of citation. His work is cited frequently in court briefs and other publications that don't show up on Google Scholar. Furthermore, his work has been cited by numerous advocacy groups and in books,his work is used in legislatures to determine constitutionality of laws and he's even had his work cited prominently by foreign courts. Based on SSRN statistics, his works have been downloaded over 1,600 times (this only includes SSRN downloads, which is exclusive of direct downloads from the journals the papers are published in as well as downloads from sites that host the papers directly). His ranking based on downloads from SSRN puts him in the top 6% of all authors published on SSRN. Furthermore, his work is frequently covered both in printed news and on sources such as radio. By these more inclusive standards of notability and citation, there is ample reason to consider work to be notable. George Benzion (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails WP:GNG. As for WP:ACADEMIC, I don't see independent sources which discuss his scholarly contribution, i.e., George Benzion's findings and the article itself is original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being in the top 6% of downloads on SSRN means very little. Such sites have a very long tail of contributors with such insignificant numbers of downloads, as 1600 is. The fact that the article makes a point of the four citations in Google Scholar is also indicative of the creator being unaware of our requirements. Scholars typically need to have hundreds of citations, not less than a handful, to be considered notable on their basis. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I'm not sure why this entry is being judged as one covering an academic, as the original article clearly stated that the subject is an attorney and the founder of a legal institute. Nowhere did it claim that the subject was an academic. In the legal field, it's rare to see a non-academic published at all, and the fact that the subject of this article has been published numerous times is clearly notable. While it's true that 4 Google Scholar citations is not a significant number, the subject is not a scholar and the fact that scholars are citing his work indicates that his work is indeed notable. The Google Scholar reference was added after the original article was posted by someone who probably made a mistake in thinking this was an article about a scholar, rather than an attorney-activist. Those who advocate deletion are looking at this entry under the wrong category. The subject is a notable attorney and his work is widely cited by others in his field (see the various citations by legal groups such as Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, the Brandeis Center and Lawfare). As for SSRN, there are approximately 320,000 authors published on the site. Being in the top 6% means a lot more than the previous user gave credit for. Looking at the entry rigidly through the narrow lens of citation of his work by academics is not an accurate measure of the notability of the subject. George Benzion (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are 320,000 authors published on SSRN only underlines the point that being in the top 6% is nothing to write home about. It only means that he is in the top 19,200. And if we are not to judge this by the standards of WP:PROF we have to use WP:GNG, by which significant coverage in independent reliable sources is required, not citations by advocacy organisations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.