Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Brooks

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. The article needs some serious attention. There is certainly great room for improvements. If the issues remain and if the state of the article does not change, it can always be renominated. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brooks[edit]

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Search for Justin Brooks on HighBeam Search for Justin Brooks on JSTOR

Appears to be entirely self-promotional. Main contributor:

Jxc3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...appears to be a single-purpose account with a close connection to the subject.

SageGreenRider (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although this person seems to be doing interesting work, I don't think he passes wp:academics. No named chair, no awards that I can find, and his academic writings are cited a couple of dozen times only. LaMona (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject might be notable - his h-index, according to Google Scholar, is only about 7 but that actually seems to be quite high for law academics. But, while it might be very weakly suggestive of notability, what it mainly establishes is that citation rates are an ineffective way to prove notability for law academics. Again, the California Innocence Project, which he apparently founded and leads, seems to be genuinely notable. But while I am seeing the possibility of the subject's notability, it is disappointing to find that the article does absolutely nothing to help establish the subject's notability, while doing everything it can to promote him - references all seem to be either to the subject or to organisations closely connected with him (sometimes OK for verifiability, almost never directly for notability) and we are given external inline links to websites connected with the subject when Wikipedia articles could be linked to instead. The article would therefore require a thorough rewrite to establish notability - other people are welcome to try, but I can't be bothered. PWilkinson (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My grounds for deletion are not related to notability or lack thereof. I believe this is WP:SPAM which reads in part Articles considered advertisements include those that ... are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. I don't want to be WP:OUTING anyone but a quick Google search convinced me that the main contributor has a close personal connection to the subject. SageGreenRider (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is clearly notable, not as an academic per se, but for his innocence project work and getting innocent people out of prison. Clearly meets GNG. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he founded the California Innocence Project. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable. I searched Google News and the Google Newspaper archive, adding "Innocence Project" to the search terms. There are dozens of articles describing his legal work. Of course, the article ought to have more independent sources and would benefit from work by uninvolved editors. Our guideline against spam is intended to eliminate "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." I do not see the article as purely a "public relations piece." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 November 2015 (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.