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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan W. Clarke[edit]

Alan W. Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is a professor at a regional college who has published 2 books and 35 articles in his career, none of which seem to have generated very much coverage. Article hasn't been substantially updated since 2007 when the last deletion discussion was closed with no consensus. Tobyc75 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as WP:AUTHOR; written at least two books published by uni presses. Here are sample reviews:

• RENDITION TO TORTURE. O'Berry, Anne. National Lawyers Guild Review, Dec 01, 2016; Vol. 69, No. 4, p. 252-256. The article reviews the book "Rendition to Torture," by Alan W. Clarke. more
• Rendition to Torture. Jacob, Edwin Daniel. New Political Science, Jun 01, 2016; Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 285-287
• Falling Out: The United States in the Global Community. Hook, Steven W. International Studies Review, Dec 01, 2008; Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 776-781. The article reviews several books including "A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wi... more (Includes review of The Bitter Fruit of American Justice)

These reviews are from 2016, so they would not have been available for consideration in the first AfD. I can send reviews #1 and #3 to anyone interested. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is it another author whose BLP page should be kept against the policy - just because he published a couple of reviewed books? I do admit though that he seems more notable than Robert Bruce Ware, so my personal inclination would be to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ineligible book review the review of his book in the National Lawyers Guild Review cannot be used to support notability because he is a contributing editor, making it a non-independent source. Here {https://www.nlg.org/nlg-review/article/book-review-just-mercy-a-story-of-justice-and-redemption-by-bryan-stevenson/], scroll to author's bio at bottom of page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  New Political Sciende is, as [[agtx says, a decidedly second tier (I would have said third tire) journal. But the problem is tha tit is put out by the Caucus for a New Political Science, an academic group with which Clarke also appears to be affiliated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think those few reviews meet WP:AUTHOR, which notes that the relevant work is supposed to be a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work." A single book and an article in a second-tier law journal doesn't cut it. He clearly fails WP:PROF as well. agtx 02:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it this way. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Literature:

• Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete argument for notability depends on 3 book reviews. that's not much for a book on a hot political topic, even form a univeristy preess. But at least one review is in a journal where he is contributing editor, and he appears to be part of the small academic caucus that publishes the second review as well. the third is a group review of several books. It just doesn't seem to add up to enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I cannot believe the amount of discussion here conducted without any facts. The references in the article need to be updated before any discussion of deletion. And where that is concerned, all I hear is wikilawyering: "As an WP:AUTHOR, he's an trivial scribbler." "As an WP:ACADEMIC, I reject his minor school." Guess what, the school changed since the article was written, that's why the links are dead. A small school it may be, but it is a center of death penalty study. Consider instead whether Clarke has made an impact on his field. When he dies, will he get a NYT obit for free? I am guessing he will. Whenever anyone else in his field writes a book about the death penalty, they come to Clarke for a review, It sounds to me like he's the elder statesman. Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there any sources for UVU being a center of death penalty studies? How about for getting an NYT obit? Or for him being an elder statesman? Are there any major awards for his books? Are they routinely cited as a major influence in the field? If not, then just being a published author may not be enough for notability. If 2 of the 3 reviews are not independent, then it doesn't sound like he is.Tobyc75 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobyc75 makes an excellent point. A ten-year-old article on an active academic who publishes on a hot political topic without a single incoming link (except form his own university' s page) is an excellent (if unofficial) indication of lack of notability. I sometimes create articles on minor academics, and people inevitably and surprisingly quickly begin link to them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response Thank you for the Gish Gallop.
    UVU probably follows Cornell, Cal, and Columbia in death penalty visibility. UVU for ten years has put on a symposium about the death penalty, sponsored by its UVU Peace & Justice Studies program. Google it and you'll find how many faculty members are qualified to present. Or if you don't want to I have provided samples of announcements from the Salt Lake Tribune [1] and Chillwall [2].
    Clarke is the go to guy for death penalty book reviews:[3] and [4]
    The criteria for a NYT obit is the topic of much speculation. Here is what Terry Gross discovered: [5]. It is, fundamentally, a secret, sorry.
    That Clarke writes reviews now and not books tell me he's an elder statesman. It's sky blue to me. If you need a journalist to synthesize that for you, then let's not put it in the article.
    I stand by my original observation of wikilawyering. Now you are looking at the control of the journals he publishes in? Other folks figure that being a journal editor or peer reviewer is something to be proud of, not an indication of crony collusion and second rate research. Rhadow (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the nominator. This article fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Also, the article only cites three sources, two of them being from the website of Clarke's univeristy where he works, and the other one being of questionable reliability or, at least, appropriateness to cite. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Clarke has been a death penalty activist since school days in the 1980s. One may argue that his contribution as a lawyer was insufficient to meet GNG. One may argue that his contribution as an academic since 2003 was insufficient to meet GNG. One may argue that his contribution as an author was insufficient to meet GNG. One may argue that his contribution as as a symposium organizer, journal editor, and reviewer was insufficient to meet GNG. Put them all together, and I suggest you have a notable person. Rhadow (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhadow. Just publishing a few reviewed books (the argument by K.e.coffman) would not be sufficient. However, considering all these factors together, he appears as a notable lawyer who passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Except, of course, that no one has been able to source the article. I did search. He hardly ever gets quoted in the media - let alone INDEPTH. His articles are rarely cited. His books - on a hot political topic - seem to have gotten 3 reviews, and 2 of the three in minor journals with which he is closely associated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. K.e.coffman is quite right that we almost always keep authors whose books have been reviewed multiple times, as stated in black and white at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common_outcomes#Literature. I'm also persuaded by Rhadow's reasoning that a weak keep under three separate notability guidelines adds up to a solid keep. – Joe (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you cite is not a guideline. For some reasons this was not included in guidelines. Perhaps it should be, but I guess there is a reason: such things have been discussed in the past, and there was no consensus to include. Maybe someone should post an RfC or something on the proper policy page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a guideline because it doesn't prescribe anything. It's just a factual list of the usual outcomes of certain types of AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be clarified and asked the question [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 9 November 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.