Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Coughlin

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. The concerns about notability were not addressed by those who advocated keeping the article. None of the reliable sources added since the AfD discuss Coughlin in any detail. Claims about his eminence in the field are not enough; we need third-party sources to back them up. Huon (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Coughlin[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The page should be deleted because the subject lacks the notoriety appropriate to a Wiki entry. I, as the page creator, realize that I unknowingly violated policy by listing facts that could not be substantiated. Presently, a user editor has been making antagonistic changes. When I created the page without the request of my mentor, I thought it would provide an asset to him but there is an undeniable conflict of interest CAcarissma (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. COI on its own doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted though. The subject seems potentially notable if the article can be re-cast to focus on substantive achievements or contributions to their field (if they have these). As it stands, however, it is probably best removed. --gilgongo (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ed by

KeepI nominated the entry for deletion based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes COI. I am ready, willing, and able to make the changes suggested by user Gilgongo. [t[Special:Contributions/23.243.128.110|23.243.128.110]] (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)CAcarissma[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 6 fails WP:Prof#C1 Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP Cross reference Coughlin to canon-civil lawyers or run a Google search. He's one of a handful in the world with such expertise. While I appreciate the creator's confession, IMHO, creating a page for a well-known and respected academic in and of itself does not constitute a conflict of interest, nor should traffic be the sine qua non of notoriety. That noted, traffic to the page has consistently increased in recent months Grafman1945 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Grafman1945— Grafman1945 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To 1 edit spa. Subject may be respected and well-known but he is not well-cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A valid point to consider, but also, a danger in emphasizing citations when a subject's reknown isn't limited to academics but includes lawyering and ministering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgyhra (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I began following Professor Coughlin's work when he made the bold leap from the familiarity of Notre Dame University to cutting-edge education at New York University. Now that he's at a truly world-class university teaching tomorrow's leaders Coughlin will achieve the kind of notoriety in the world his publications deserve and already have in Catholic and Canon Law circles. There's not a soul in Catholic academics who isn't steeped in Professor Coughlin's research so considering the article for deletion caused shock and sadness. If a citation check can be limited to the field of Canon Law I surmise he's top ten most cited scholars. Search for Canon Law on Amazon and his books appear on the first page of results. To the petitioner, I made the so called antagonistic changes to the entry. The intro used to say something about Coughlin's thought instead of a list of interests. I thought the entry was vandalized and I was correcting the problem. I meant no harm whatsoever Rgyhra (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Yhra R.— Rgyhra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete because of the blatant attempt here to subvert the voting process. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, that is not a valid reason for deletion. The real issue here is whether this individual passes the relevant notability guidelines.This AfD debate is not a vote, and if users are treating it as a vote, the closing admin will give their !votes (notice the exclamationmark) the level of weight they deserve (ie little or none). James500 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WithdrawnWith appreciation for the assistance provided by DUCKISJAMMMY in helping me to learn proper Wikipedia procedure, I would like to submit a proper request to withdraw my nomination for deletion of the entry. As stated above, I was too pedantic in my interpretation of what constitutes a Conflict of Interest and should have pursued alternate routes to quash the editing issues before making the nomination. For my disruption, I humbly request a *speedy keep Thank you for your consideration of my request to withdraw the nomination and for your patience as I continue to develop my Wikipedia skillsetCAcarissma (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC) — CAcarissma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

CAcarissma a nominator may announce their intention to withdraw their nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed especially in this case as there is insisting delete votes. Additionally a nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. To clarify for everyone else, CAcarissma who is nominator decided that their nomination was a mistake and removed the AfD template I reverted & warned the user not to remove the AfD template while the AfD was ongoing and advised the user if they wished to withdraw to state that in the AfD discussion but CAcarissma delayed and there is delete votes. Therefore the discussion must run it's course CAcarissma, a minimum of seven days. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and information. I have attempted to improve the entry by adding a reference to Coughlin's "pioneering" work from a book review in the March 2013 issue of the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion. The review articulates Coughlin's unique contributions to the fields of law and religion in language far more compelling than my own. A link to the book review is available at footnote 14.CAcarissma (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources are either written by John, or by Notre Dame Law School he is closely affiliated with, I doubt in notability. Gryllida (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already voted to keep the article as noted above. Please forgive any errors in form. Granted, there are article editors affiliated with Coughlin's teaching institutions but I think all contributing editors, myself included (although I've zero affiliation aside from being a fan of his work) have maintained a neutral POV throughout. IMHO, significant changes to the article in October eliminated the elements which assist the reader in understanding Coughlin's significant impact to the field in favor of a droll statement of interests. Rather than a wholesale rejection, the article is worth working on to improve. The key consideration at play here is notability. Being relatively new to the Wikipedia forum and doing my utmost to avoid any biting responses(comments suggest it's irregular for article editors to weigh in as they're immediately called out as suspect), I've dedicated much time to an exacting review of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on various considerations of notability when considering an academic article(To list one- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29). It's true Coughlin's h-index is 6 but it's also true the value of the measure has limitations as applied to the humanities. In particular, the field of Canon Law has a lackluster online presence which skews results. Coughlin meets the "Professor Test" - he's published two books by Oxford University Press, the first book is used is an introductory textbook for Divinity School Canon Law students in (at least) the US and Italy, he was a fully tenured and distinguished professor at Notre Dame, next year he will be the same at NYU, the Oxford Journal referenced above(http://ojlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/03/09/ojlr.rwt011) and many others (see newly listed third party resources at footnotes 15, 17, 18, 27, including comments about his work from Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Vatican's highest court of Canon Law) describe his significant impact to academics in his fields of study, he's made a major impact outside of academics by way of his service to the Catholic Church and NYC through being a Knight of Malta and priest - all of which are handily proven by independent, reliable resources. As the time for consideration comes to a close, I urge all to see the big picture, keep the article and work together to see its improvement. Rgyhra (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Yhra[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.