Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bernstein (law professor) 2

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 of the debate was keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Bernstein (law professor)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bernstein (law professor) (September 2005).

Please forgive this relisting, but this article fails to mention much of anything, including any sort of importance or notability. Additionally, the page has remained an unreferenced stub since its inception and survival of the first AFD. RFerreira 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF as it stands. Tevildo 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. HeinOnline lists 21 law review articles; frequent blogger at Volokh Conspiracy, a prominent law blog; professor at a well-known university. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete weak, strong, medium, fails WP:PROF. No independent articles citing as notable expert, no references as advisor to well-known student, etc. I'm sure he's published, everyone publishes. Being at a notable school does not make him notable, nor is being a frequent blogger - heck, I'd be notable then. Hey... no, never mind. Tychocat 00:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think he passes WP:PROFTEST. Evidence: http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste/BernsteinCV.html. (editied the stub to include that) Viridae^Talk 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Viridae. He's written 4 books, reviewed all the heck over the place. The third on the list has won a prize. This article is in a crappy state, but eventually someone will improve it. Mangojuice^talk 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Keep are you kidding? What Proftest? He co-runs a super-popular blog! And he passes Proftest, anyway... - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:43, 2 July 2006
  • No, I wasn't kidding. How is the popularity of this blog being measured? It would be beneficial if that could be documented within the article. RFerreira 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. It's either the top or the #2 legal blog in the U.S. It's extremely well known. I've seen the rankings before, but I am not sure where to find them now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 100th most popular blog worldwide per technorati [1] - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you Crazy Russian, that is very helpful. Looking at the Volokh Conspiracy article, it appears that there are at least 17 different contributors to this popular blog. Should all of them receive articles on Wikipedia? I am now convinced that we should keep the article on the blog, but not necessarily every single one of the bloggers who write for it. RFerreira 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, DB is a major founder/contributor. There are only 4or 5 major ones there. Besides, he independently meets PROFTEST, as we have pointed out. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:50, 4 July 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.