Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Birmingham

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 no consensus. No evidence has been shown that he meets GNG, PROF#4, or PROF#5. However, only one criterion needs to be met, and I see no consensus that he fails PROF#1 on the strength of his citations or even a weak consensus that he does. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Birmingham

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No secondary sources to establish

WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Kaszper (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely teaching at one institution for 40 years is not in and of itself a sign of notability. Nor is this time even close to record breaking. Richard O. Cowan was a professor at BYU for 54 years, and he does not even hold the record as longest serving faculty member at that university, he only holds the record for his department.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The subject's top-cited article has over 400 GS citations, but citations drop off steeply after that. The article could surely be cut down severely. @Bearian: I'd be interested in your thoughts on this law professor. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain which criteria? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (
WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I checked on his status as the longest tenured and found that it is correct. i added a notes section which is now collapsed. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmmm, PROF#5 is "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment " but I am having trouble seeing this in the article, could you help me and quote the relevant part? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his scholarship and to a lesser degree, longevity. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think we are too strict when it comes to academics, but I don't see what makes him notable. The only special thing is the one solo authored article that has 400+ cites, his other wor is much less impactful. I am not seeing him being written up and called influential and such by his peers, so he fails GNG/NBIO, and has very little help from PROF :( Ping me if new arguments/evidence/sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have respect for the professor who has put years of his life in education, but unfortunately this does not make him notable.
talk) 12:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I don't think a single paper that is well-cited but not exceptional beyond that can be enough for
WP:PROF. And there seems to be nothing else. Certainly being the next one to reach retirement age is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Leaning keep. I believe that
WP:NPROF #1 is satisfied by having hundreds of publications on Google Scholar, the leading one having over 400 citations. BD2412 T 02:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of comments here are making assertions without supporting evidence; relisting to allow discussion of the significance of his citation record and specifically whether he meets WP:PROF#4
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Specifically whether he meets WP:PROF#4"??? No. One does not meet #C4 by working for roughly the normal length of an academic career at a single place rather than moving. #C4 is very rarely invoked, for good reason, but the normal way one meets it is by writing textbooks with documented evidence of use at many universities. In particular #C4 explicitly includes the wording "substantial number of academic institutions". We have no evidence of that in this case. We have nobody even trying to claim that in this case. Maybe this was a typo and you really meant #C1? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being a professor for a long time isn't enough to be notable.
talk) 20:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:NPROF C1. Subject is notable for originating the idea of efficient breach of contract (in his highly cited GS article), which has gotten a fair bit of discussion in the legal literature. The article here needs some cleanup and trimming, but as usual, AfD is not cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. First of all, no one provides any serious argument that the subject doesn't meet PROF#1; the idea that he fails it merely because he achieved the impact through a single paper is inane. Second, I have no idea why a project which aspires to be the sum of all human knowledge has such antipathy toward knowledge workers; if one widely reviewed album is enough for a musician, then one widely cited paper should be enough for an academic. Third, none of the delete !voters bothered to look behind the scandal-sheet local coverage and recognized the existence of a high-profile academic freedom controversy, reported at many sources including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Actually, I added the scandal-sheet local coverage in support of keeping the article. Please feel free to improve the representation of that matter. BD2412 T 23:34, 27 July 2020 (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.