Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Volokh

: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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator plus snow keep. (non-admin closure) First Light (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

=[[Eugene Volokh]]=

:{{la|Eugene Volokh}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eugene_Volokh Stats])

:({{Find sources|Eugene Volokh}})

Withdrawn I see no eidence of notability of this person. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Very well known and highly cited legal academic, very high gscholar hits and h-index, which I won't even bother to calculate. The Volokh Conspiracy blog is one of the best known legal blogs; even gets 1200 gscholar hits. Way above the bar; not a very sensible nomination.John Z (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Notable both as a commentator on legal issues, via his blog, as well as through a wide range of scholarly articles in First Amendment law. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow keep. Passes multiple WP:PROF criteria (highly cited publications, named chair) and is famous as a blogger and columnist outside of academia. With such a vague rationale for deletion, and such obvious reasons for keeping, this looks to me like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should be closed early. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow keep. One of the more notable names I've seen at AfD recently; as stated above, a very well known writer and academic, certainly no reason to delete this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Hold your show in your poketses. Are you forgetting something? Thank you all for knowing and liking this person. But... What is the evidence of notability in the article itself? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Snowy Keep for the reasons well-noted above. Nom misunderstands AfD. See WP:BEFORE, in particular "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" TJRC (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

: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.