Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Oman

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The result was withdrawn by nominator, (non-admin closure) . TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Oman

Nom hereby withdrawn by nominator per info contributed by User:Johnpacklambert (diff) rgding academic book authorship.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The guidelines at

wp:PROF or else believing it likewise should be changed and holds that potential blp subjects teaching at universities must "pass wp:PROF." Oman by such lights definitely does not, having published no books; he owes what little notability he has to his function as a public intellectual via his published web content and mainstream media articles/commentary. Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep While I would argue he is notable as a public intelectual he actually passes Academic notability point 5. At least my initial instinct is holding a named professorship at the College of William and Mary, the second oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and one of the more prestigious, counts for point 5.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here [1] is a link showing Oman is the holder of the Cabell Chair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment additionally I am fairly certain it is more rare for legal scholars to publish books as opposed to historians. I say that latter because this feels to me like a pointy nomination in response to the deletion of the article on Benjamin E. Park.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply - Long-time users habitually cite "Subject fails wp:PROF" even in the face of the fact that the wp:PROF guideline itself is designed merely as an alternate means of establishing notability in cases where a potential academic bio subject doesn't prove notable otherwise, viz., through there being in-sufficient reliable secondary sources per wp:BIO. These users' awareness of this language at these guidelines indicates their lack of candor in promoting their favored work around WP's actual guidelines. This needs to be fixed by rewording the guidelines at wp:BIO and wp:PROF, etc., to indicate that academics and the like are to be held to a higher standard in certain cases than other potential subjects. (I've decided to copy and paste the above part of this paragraph to Jimbo's talkpage and point to same at WP's Village Pump.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually Oman has written The Dignity of Commerce: Markets and the Moral Foundations of Contract Law, so the claim he has no books published is also untrue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here [2] are the google scholar results for Oman. I have no clue if this is enough to make him a notable legal scholar or not, but he is much more than a public intellectual. He is also a legal scholar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2017 (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.