Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Neeleman

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 --JForget 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Neeleman

Just an average professor DimaG (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete non notable professor, one sentence mini stub that clearly states his lack of notability, not sourced at all, not even a single external link...no brainer.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the references at this Google Scholar search. --Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The foregoing link actually confirms that this person doesn't meet WP:PROF. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The newspaper references show that he was a pioneer in using computer technology in law. --Eastmain (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. On one hand he does hold a named chair appointment at a decent law school, which I ordinarily would consider a sign of academic notability (of course, law schools often have bigger endowments and more named chair appointments than other academic departments). On the other hand his scholarly record appears thin: Eastmain's GoogleScholar search returns a grant total of 5 hits and GoogleBooks does not return much either[1]. GoogleNews (all dates) search gives 5 hits[2], so there does not seem to be substantial coverage in conventional newsmedia either. It does not seem to me that the subject passes WP:PROF based on these results. He does appear to be an active practicing lawer, according to his faculty profile[3], which might explain a relative lack of academic impact. It could be that he is notable as a lawer under WP:BIO but a verifiable case for this has not been made. Nsk92 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named chairs at major universities are notable. Always. GS is not even remotely complete. But as Nsk says, given the relative length of time as a lawyer, from 72 to 05 along with the professorship, apparently an eminent tax & estate planning attorney. Now, this wont be visible in the case law, unlike trial or appeal lawyers, so there can be some difficulty proving it. I would thing that for a practicing attorney to b given a named chair at a major law school is an unmistakable sign of eminence in his profession. he apparently also served on some major government service roles, but I cannot totally decipher them from the sources due t o my unfamiliarity with the profession. DGG (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. Happydazer (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified is the reason. Anton Ego (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not meet WP:PROF and seems like an average academic to me. I don't think an endowed chair necessarily indicates encylopedic notability (certain chairs in certain fields at certain universities, because of traditions associated with them and notable previous holders; that's more the case in the sciences). And third-party coverage is very thin indeed, along the lines of passing mentions. --MCB (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's your opinion--I think it equally likely that those universities with the largest number of such chairs have the eminent professors to fill them--its rather the other way round, that because of the manner of funding, the most important of the state flagship universities have a deficiency of named chairs. (I expect this will probably be corrected as they all of them are trying to be more self-sufficient here, via one or another device. ) I'd say that this distinction is a pretty lear way of dividing up the full professors, for t hose who think for some reason that a full professors at a major research university aren't overwhelmingly likely be notable because of the documented recognition of status by their peers. Law is a difficult field for Wikipedia to find good criteria. DGG (talk)`

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.