Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Franzese

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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Franzese

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

Fails WP:BIO - Cwobeel (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill law professor who does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the massive tidy up & sourcing done by Tomwsulcer (Thanks Tomwsulcer), I was extremely surprised to see it improved so much!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS h-index of 11. Not quite there for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. The AfD was understandable, considering the meager lines, the promotional nature, the utter lack of references. But a clue to me about notability (I understand the pageview measure is not an official guideline, but it is helpful as an indicator, IMHO) was huge pageviews, even 600+ pageviews on one day. Plus, the article has been around here awhile in Wikipedia, 5 years, without deletion; plus previous versions of the article were much longer, but unsourced, so they got trimmed substantially, rightly so, to stubbify the article; but I think much of the previous version was nevertheless correct (albeit rather promotional, perhaps written by a student or colleague?, that is, somebody unfamiliar with Wikiquette?). Still, it is good the article was AfD-ed to bring it to attention. Searching, I found numerous reliable references, added. Notable legal scholar, legal educator, ethics advocate, many many sources. Revamped article should stay.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Tomwsulcer. When I checked I could not find any sources, but you did and it worked. Article should be kept, but there are still issues with the article that need to be addressed in the normal course of editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cwobeel yes the sources were a bit buried, whats cool is she is talented in so many areas that it is hard to identify one area of expertise. Yes the article can be improved like everything here in Wikipedia it is all one giant work-in-progress, and it is good to challenge defective articles since it brings more eyes and hopefully improvement if it is possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that it's better sourced. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Johnpacklambert that this is a very "run-of-the-mill" law professor that does not pass notability guidelines. Will note that frequently the professor's resume has been posted -- in full -- to Wikipedia, which frequently goes unnoticed for years. To me this is circumstantial evidence of promotion/+ a *lack* of notability. (Will admit that I gave an initial stab at a clean-up, but did not have much time to do work as good as has been recently done by you all). The statistics are useful but the way they are presented is misleading (through no fault of Tomwsulcer I will add): due to the manner in which bar preparation is conducted in the U.S., many tens of thousands of students are likely exposed to the lectures at once, during the summer months. It is logical that page views will spike during this time, before the late-summer bar examinations, but the average daily page views are much less than 600 -- and much closer to 50. Even so, page views are only circumstantial evidence of notability. Based on many of the deleted edits to this article, it appears (but cannot be verified) that the professor is popular with students -- but this is not necessarily notability. Lots of professors are popular with students. No concrete evidence or unbiased secondary source suggests that this professor passes the notability threshold. The credentials/references currently noted are very common in the field. --MaRoWi (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about being named one of the top 26 best law professors? Appearing as an expert on MSNBC? Did you see this write-up praising Franzese? None of this suggests run of the mill but an influential and notable leader in her field. And the overriding test of notability is not WP:ACADEMIC but WP:GNG and she easily surpasses the GNG with 20 references, including substantial coverage in reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those references when I said that no evidence existed indicating notability. I don't understand your basis for granting Michael Hunter Schwartz such authority for his case study. As I noted when I edited out a misrepresentation that characterized that reference as a *ranking* of 26 law professors, it is in fact not a ranking. It is a case study of 26 professors that the author chose for whatever reason. There is no qualitative or quantitative analysis performed in that work that compares those professors to the rest of the field. Even assuming it were a ranking, I do not believe that William H. Bowen School of Law is exactly renown for its opinion on the legal education system. I note that many Yale/Harvard law professors here -- with careers that go back to the 1950s, much more impressive clerkships (Supreme Court), and many more publications -- have mere stubs of articles. I would argue that *they* might not even pass the notability threshold, either -- and it is highly likely that at least 20 references could be found for them, too. As for MSNBC, many law professors and other attorneys also appear as legal experts on network television. CNN employs a few regulars in-house. Why does this confer notability? Evaluating all of these references in context, it is clear that this professor is not notable. You suggest earlier that "whats cool is she is talented in so many areas that it is hard to identify one area of expertise" -- isn't this an admission that it you cannot identify an area of expertise? Please look at the profesisonal website pages for virtually any law professor at any law school; you will see a large number of comparable references. If this professor is notable, then we should get to work making pages for every law professor in the United States. --MaRoWi (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hunter Schwartz is acknowledged as an authority on legal education who is a law school dean. He is well-qualified to write with two other academics on the 26 best law school teachers. They used a rigorous selection methodology which included nominations, screening, even personal visits. Check out the methodology for selecting the 26. Few professors are chosen to appear as experts on MSNBC since they are vetted by television executives beforehand. Why does author Richard Reuben write the following: I later mentioned how impressed I was with Paula to a colleague of mine who teaches property, and he told me just who she is: she is a respected property casebook author and scholar, a leader in the AALS Section on Teaching Methods, a star on the Bar Bri circuit, and, at the time, a seven-time winner of Seton Hall’s teaching award. She is now up to nine. Who is Reuben? A chaired professor at the University of Missouri, well qualified to write such a book. Franceze is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I believe you are grossly mis-stating and representing these sources. I quote from WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. You're using Schwartz's university profile and university page on his deanship to decide whether to give weight to his book and a methodology that I do not believe stands for the proposition you continue to cite it for. You then cite to a "nine-time" award bestowed on Franzese by the institution that employs her. None of these sources are independent of the subject (and this is a basis that Reuben cites for his opinion -- so I strongly question its value). There are only a handful of sources, even including Schwartz's book, that might stand for the proposition of notability, but again WP:GNG: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." I do not think a significant level of coverage exists here, given the handful of sources. This page has a history of being abused for promotional purposes (which continues inasmuch as the Schwartz work is misrepresented). You may be unfamiliar with the legal education industry, but awards of this type are commonplace, and could essentially be considered promotional materials. Media appearances -- and you only cite to one network -- are commonplace for law professors at Franzese's level. You do not address this point, but I stress it, the type of information you rely on for notability would extend notability to most, if not all, law professors at accredited U.S. law schools. I do not think this can be the case. We may have to agree to disagree, but to me it is becoming very clear that this professor is not notable, and I wonder whether your defense of the article has more to do with the work you've put in it than the subject matter at hand (I note you've given this article as much weight as the one for Richard Allen Epstein, for example, and much more than the one-liner for Trevor Morrison, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg). Will you fully flesh out these pages next? What is the distinction? Strong delete. --MaRoWi (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Schwartz is a reliable source. Professor Schwartz has 20 years of experience in legal education and is widely considered a leading national expert in law teaching and learning says NTXE News, and Schwartz et al selected Franzese as one of the top 26 law school professors in the US; Publishers Weekly reviewed Schwartz's book here. Overall it is an excellent indication of Franzese's notability. That Seton Hall awarded Franzese best teacher award for nine years is not a COI -- the school could have chosen any of the other law professors there, but they didn't; Seton Hall chose her out of 80+ full-time professors. That means something. If those awards were commonplace, why didn't the other 79 law professors get them? And nine years she earned this award. I doubt you could prove your assertion that all law professors at a certain level appear on MSNBC as experts; my sense it is very few are chosen, and they are selected because they are vetted by TV producers. Your references to other lawyers and whether they appear in Wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. My interest in this subject is simply that Franzese meets the GNG. Simple as that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point I think we're at an impasse. I think "What the Best Law Teachers Do" is a non-quantitative, highly subjective work on teaching methods (essentially case studies) and it's a misrepresentation to suggest it reflects a determination that the professors studied are somehow quantitatively "the best". I think this is essentially the only distinctive source that exists for Franzese, and that isn't enough to get past the GNG guideline requiring substantial recognition. If you've ever watched MSNBC, you'll have noticed that law professors are frequent guest commentators (in every sub-field of law), and therefore Franzese's occasional contributions are not notable. I believe you simply ignore the COI issues present. I believe you ignore the weak academic impact indicated by previous posters. I believe you take every other piece of evidence -- like pointing out a seasonal peak 600+ page views but omitting the fact that the average is generously around 50 -- out of context. The guidelines only make sense in context; you apply them as absolutes, you can eventually make any page seem notable. We can keep talking past each other, but I think it is time for other people (e.g., not people defending their own work on this page) to weigh in. --MaRoWi (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. What about being chairwoman of the NJ Ethics Commission, serving with three New Jersey governors -- this is hardly "run of the mill" stuff. Certainly you will not argue that every law professor gets to be appointed chairwoman of the NJ Ethics Commission, like they all take turns like its musical chairs. Or, winning the Rosenman Prize at Columbia Law School -- is this another of your COI awards (possible spurious reasoning: Columbia University was where Franzese went to school QED Columbia has a vested interest in awarding the Rosenman Prize to her, like maybe Columbia gives every law school graduate a Rosenman Prize). Be realistic. When the Philadelphia Inquirer wants to quote an expert on ethics, to comment on the Christie bridge lane closure scandal, they chose [Franzese -- clearly a sign of notability to be quoted on this subject in a big city daily. Maybe you're fixated on deleting every lawyer who isn't Clarence Darrow but clearly Franzese meets Wikipedia's GNG requirements in spades.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - simply put, the article now passes WP:BIO as proper references have now been added, and the article salvaged by the user Tomwsulcer, who has also succeeded in demonstrating the reliability of his sources. Understandable nomination at the time. Flip^and Flopped ツ 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. All this and nobody mentioned her named chair already? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article made no mention of her named chair or most other things when I nominated it. Beyond that, I have always been uncertain if all named chairs qualify for that rule, or only those at some universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2014 (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.