Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Bernstein

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. NW (Talk) 22:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Bernstein[edit]

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

This was prodded; I deprodded for a more substantive debate. Subject is a former bankruptcy judge (bankruptcy judges in the U.S. work for the court, and are not presidential appointees); author of one law school textbook. Sufficiently notable? bd2412 T 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:JUDGE: "Judges who fail specific notability guidelines (such as WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, etc.) are nevertheless notable if ... they are non-temporary members of a high court..." The definition of a high court is given at WP:COURTS. I can't find any reliable sources that establish notability of this person. Furthermore, as far as I can tell (without being an expert on the judicial system), U.S. District Courts are not high courts by Wikipedia's definition. Therefore, notability cannot be established. Snottywong (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:JUDGE is, at present, neither policy not guideline. It's a proposed guideline in draft form. Its contents in its present state should not be relied upon to support a position. It does not reflect a community consensus. That's not a criticism of it; that's inherent in any proposed guideline that's still in the process of being thrashed out. I request that Snottywong reconsider his opinion without reliance on that page. TJRC (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an essay indicated he agrees with the sentiments of that essay, and those sentiments are part of his reaseon for !voting delete.Yob Mod 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I can't tell if he was citing it as an essay or as a guideline; it may be clearer to you. I have no problem with his Delete position (I come down the same way myself, below), I just would like to make sure he's not doing so based on a a policy that does not actually exist. TJRC (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. In terms of the possibility of inherent notability, I regard US bankruptcy judges as being somewhere between U.S. District Court Judges (who, being presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, and having lifetime tenure, I feel are inherently notable) and U.S. Magistrate Judges (who are appointed by the courts themselves, have 4- or 8-year terms, and can even be part-time; and who I feel are not inherently notable). I come down on the side that, given the terms of years and the non-presidential appointment, bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable. The position helps, but there must be something significant beyond it: an oft-cited opinion; a major case; or some work outside the bankruptcy court. In this case, there's nothing special about Bernstein's career as a bankruptcy judge, and the only extracurricular work is authoring a textbook and teaching law. Unless there's something very special about either, I don't see anything making this worthy of retention. I could be convinced otherwise if there's something more to it. TJRC (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know Bernstein's name personally, but the Southern and Eastern districts of NY, along with Delaware, are strong bankruptcy areas. Putting inherent notability aside, there's an overwhelming possibility that any Southern or Eastern District federal judge in NY is going to have some major cases that grant notability to the judge. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Bankruptcy judges are federal judges, and while the nom is correct that they're not Article III judges they are substantially more rare and important than Administrative Law Judges. As per TJRC's comment, bankruptcy judges get 14 year terms and are not Article I judges (they serve at the pleasure of congress and not the president) and can only be removed for very specific reasons. All of that's an aside beyond the fact that the Bankruptcy court judges are fairly small and I would suggest possibly inherently notable. On this specific individual, his contributions to Colliers might be enough in any other context to secure his notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TJRC. Notability guidelines are to indicate that sources should be easily found, even if not in the article. This marginal case would need sources to actually exist to be notable. If he is inherently notable, where are the sources? This is not just non-notable, but unverifiable.Yob Mod 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here are just a few reliable sources demonstrating notability: author of a "Must Read" Decision, author, 1590318129 author again, ISBN 0333969022 contributing author, law review author, author. The textbook authorship alone would satisfy the criteria for most academics. I am surprised there are calls for delete at all with a subject like this. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no convincing demonstration of notability per the guideline. Eusebeus (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. District judge is not a high enough level, his textbook appears to be non-notable (e.g. only in 42 libraries in Worldcat), and there's no evidence that he passes any of the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I disagree with the premise that a U.S. district court judge is not at a high enough level. Given that it's a Presidential appointment, requires Senate confirmation, and has a lifetime tenure, I regard such judges as being inherently notable, the draft guideline WP:JUDGE notwithstanding. However, the subject here is a bankruptcy judge, not a district court judge. I make this comment in case future AFDs refer to this discussion for support for the premise about district court judges. TJRC (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2009 (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.