Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Goldman

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 (no consensus). Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Goldman

Law professor who predicted Wikipedia's imminent demise in his blog. Seems to be the only reason he has an article. NTK 04:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep, there wasn't even a source for the statement that someone has noted him, but now there is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've added a link to a Law.com article that quotes him for commentary on an internet law issue, which should provide citation of his notability. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable for the claim, which was covered by InformationWeek [1]. SSRN shows activity regarding his scholarship as well [2]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep claim was covered by InformationWeek and also in a Law article: [3] Leigh8959 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That Law.com article makes no mention of his Wikipedia claim ... it just quotes his comments on the Google case. --Dennette 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^(тąιк) 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to criticisms of Wikipedia unless he has some other claim to fame (perhaps he has some important law publications, etc.) savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leigh8959. frummer 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ter e nc e Ong 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. If Wikipedia is the source of his notability (and beyond his bet, he is just another r-o-t-m prof, this should be covered elsewhere (as noted above). Is simply being mentioned in an article now grounds for establishing notability? That's ridiculous. Eusebeus 10:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Semi-merge per Savidan. While the prediction is notable because of the non-trivial coverage, all this warrants is a one-line mention in the criticism article. A full article on this person based on their blog entry and news coverage of that blog entry is not warranted, unless he is demonstrated to be notable in some other way. ("Multiple non-trivial sources" etc. etc.) Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Leigh. -Toptomcat 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO ... having something from a blog entry covered in a single magazine article (also note that it's the second blog that made the news, not the first prediction from a year ago), and a casual mention in another article about a completely unrelated subject (Google's anti-trust case), are hardly "notable accomplishments" worthy of an article ... if he's such an authority, then why aren't there more citations for him other than his blog? Noteriety is not the same thing as notability. Remember, he is supposed to be the subject of multiple articles, and so far, it's only his prediction that has been the subject of a single article in an industry trade journal that is not widely read by the general public (InformationWeek is a long way from New York Times or Wall Street Journal kind of exposure, right?) ... being quoted (along with others) in one Law.com article (about Google) is not sufficient. Maybe add a paragraph to Criticisms of Wikipedia#Recent media discussions with the InformationWeek citation, but what they said about some topic is not the same as what they have accomplished, and while the topic may be notable, that does not grant notability to the speaker. --Dennette 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be notable only by Self reference. TonyTheTiger 19:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone check the ref at [4]? A quick Google turned up [5]. See also WP:PROF. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t19:58z
- Reply - They are the same thing ... an amicus curiae brief can be filed by anyone, even people who are neither lawyers nor academics ... there is nothing intrinsically notable about having written a "friend of the court" essay along with two other lawyers ... all this citation does is document his academic affiliation as of the date that it was filed. --Dennette 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in 4 years... eh... just kidding. Delete. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TonyTheTiger Alan Pascoe 12:18, 23 December 2006 (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.