Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Kinsella (third nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.--Wizardman 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously kept in 2005, I believe consensus on notability has moved on since then. Specifically, of the cited sources, four are from the subject (not independent) and those which are independent do not appear to include the name Kinsella. Does this person pass the primary notability criterion? If so, the article does not indicate it. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That's a resume. Now add the independent sources about the individual. Please. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.
Here are multiple independent sources:
  1. citation of Kinsella by Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan re: Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics
  2. CV for Walter Block listing four articles coauthored with Kinsella and published in notable venues (Block even tests his Law & Economics students on Kinsella's IP views)
  3. Notable debate about intellectual property with Kinsella and Ilana Mercer on one side and James DeLong on the other, from Insight Magazine. (linked article above is hosted on Kinsella's website, although not originally published there)
  4. Google Scholar search for "Stephan Kinsella" that yields 232 results (including a lot of his patent work, his articles in various journals, and many, many citations in the work of other notable scholars, including Walter Block, Roderick Long, et al.)
I think it is abundantly clear that Kinsella is notable enough for inclusion. DickClarkMises 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, and as the initial author of the article (my first contributions to Wikipedia, I should add :), I think it is important to note that the nom is correct about the fact that the article needs improvement. I fully intend to expand the article using the sources I found above. Right now I am just a little busy. Others are obviously encouraged to expand the article if they have time. DickClarkMises 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dick, just slap them in as external links. That will fix a substantial part of the problem. Although come to think of it your username does rtaher suggest WP:COI... Guy (Help!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If someone as academically insignificant as Tom Palmer has a Wiki, so should Kinsella, who (as the previous poster noted) has a huge CV with numerous impressive articles, referenced by various sources. Kinsella also has a well-acclaimed book on International Law that has been published, and is available on Amazon.com. Along with a 9-part treatise on the law of commerce. And a book on Online Contract Formation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Seems to have plenty of non-trivial references. It sets a bad precedent to start reevaluating selected articles simply because elements of Wikipedia policy have been modified. Are we going to have to do this with all other biographical articles, or certainly this one once Wikipedia notability policy changes again in a year or two? 23skidoo 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per all. Consensus has moved on to a point where we see the wisdom of keeping a topic like this in this project. Prolific writer published by major publishers. --Oakshade 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think the stricter policy would have affected this article. The subject is clearly notable as an author. The older articles whi ch might be more appropriately challenged are the ones without sources. DGG 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all. --JayJasper 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but could use more independent sources. Realkyhick 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Author of an abundance of literature cited by scholars in his fields. Ikilled007 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
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.