Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rovine

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. Sandstein 08:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rovine

[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)

This article appears to be a compilation of every mention of Mr. Rovine on the Web. All of the sources are either primary sources or non-independent and of questionable reliability. I couldn't find a single independent, reliable source providing any significant coverage of Mr. Rovine. Therefore, the subject appears to fail WP:BIO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, fueled by primary sources, and fails WP:GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable academic and author. This is a review of his book in American Journal of International Law, a notable academic journal. See the citations for his work at this Google Scholar search Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this but the provided information doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this link says that he was listed in various biographical directories. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listed in various directories too, but I don't get my own Wikipedia article.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible that you would pass WP:GNG. There are many notable people who do not yet have an article. (Anyway, I think that Arthur Rovine is notable.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The citations in GScholar show that this person satisfies WP:PROF. Bear in mind that law has the lowest level of citations of all fields of study, with the average law professor having a h-index of 2. Rovine is far above that. His h-index is at least 11, which is more than four times the average. He also satisfies WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. For example, "Digest of United States Practice in International Law" (1973 and possibly other years) is, as far as I can see, reviewed by Netherlands International Law Review, American Journal of International Law, Texas International Law Journal and Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (according to the index, which says it was reviewed in Spring '76). I suspect that I would find many more reviews of his books if I kept looking. This is the sort of query you have to run to get GBooks to give you all the relevant results: many strings of fragments and keywords, not just the persons' name, or even his book's title, in speech marks. James500 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 6 July 2018 (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.