Deletion of James D. Zirin

Comment: If, as some arguing for deletion have suggested, Zirin's two books do not warrant notability due to perceived insufficient depth of coverage, a plausible compromise could be to merge the two books into this article, as again,  states {{xt|"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"}}. It is clear that Zirin's writing is what he is most widely known for (https://publishingperspectives.com/2014/06/with-books-us-was-more-prudish-than-europe-says-law-historian/ here's a magazine article on Zirin's book release party). To be fair, based on presently existing sources I can't foresee either book article becoming much more than stubs while still meeting , and even ''if'' they meet , consensus may determine they are better off presented in the author's article. I again remind all that the current state of this article does not impact notability. In my opinion it currently devotes too much text to trivial or affiliated sources, and could easily be consolidated by a third or more, but |Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Zirin's books have received widespread secondary coverage in both general and specific reader sources. His biographical details are less widely covered, but verifiable due to reliable publication in ''Who's Who'' and ''New York Times''. And even primary/affiliated  sources, and those self-published by the subject can be used sparingly per , , . Zirin is by no means the most notable lawyer or writer in New York, but from existing coverage, a policy-compliant article can be made that follows the core policies of , , , and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:NPOV||WP:GNG||WP:NNC||WP:PRIMARY||WP:BIASED||WP:SELFSOURCE||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:OR||WP:BLP)

Comment: Terrible terrible article. It certainly does not pass  . If it did, there would coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Per , the subject has created two works which have received significant critical attention. In addition, this encyclopedia article ''need not be long'' to be complete, neutral, and well-written, and subjects can be notable without ''all'' biographical details being substantially documented. However, it just so happens that Zirin has biographical entries in https://archive.org/details/lz00newp ''Who's Who in America'' 1994 (pg. 3781) and https://archive.org/details/whoswhoinamerica02chic ''Who's Who in America'' 1998 (pg. 4785) which verify birth date, parents, academic career, and professional career up to 1997
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: hi {{u|Chetsford}}, have you been involved with many afds involving an author as you are incorrect when you state "Book reviews don't establish the type of deep biographical information necessary for a BLP." and "Book reviews (can) establish the notability of books, not authors (see: WP:BKCRIT)."  According to  "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work an author's body of work are their books. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." so with Zirin, https://www.worldcat.org/title/mother-court-tales-of-cases-that-mattered-in-americas-greatest-trial-court/oclc/964334255&referer=brief_results ''Mother Court'' is held by around 290 libraries and https://www.worldcat.org/title/supremely-partisan-how-raw-politics-tips-the-scales-in-the-united-states-supreme-court/oclc/971481267&referer=brief_results ''Supremely Partisan'' 370 libraries, that could be deemed as "well-known" for these kinds of books, but what about reviews? well, ''Supremely Partisan'' (SP) has  a ''Kirkus Reviews|Kirkus'' https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/james-d-zirin/supremely-partisan/ starred review, you state "The claim that one of his books has received a Kirkus Star is unremarkable; Kirkus Reviews is a (partial) pay-for-play reviewer and 10% of their reviews receive a Kirkus Star. It's not the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award." is misleading as although this may be the case here (and with other of their recent reviews), as a book review magazine that is over 80 years old it is not necessarily true about all their reviews (but i digress:)). ''SP'' has also been reviewed in ''The Times'' https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/books-supremely-partisan-how-raw-politics-tips-the-scales-in-the-united-states-supreme-court-by-james-d-zirin-b9ql3gbc2 here and ''The Spectator'' ''https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/how-impartial-is-the-us-judiciary/ here'' ''Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries'' (''Choice'') https://kcls.bibliocommons.com/item/show/1649186082 here, ''The East Hampton Star'' http://easthamptonstar.com/Books/20161103/Politicized-and-Polarized here (may be deemed "too local"?),  and ''ABA Journal'' http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/books_polarized_judiciary_politics here, so meets ; with ''Mother Court'' it has been reviewed by ''Choice'', ''ForeWord Magazine Reviews'', ''Library Journal'' http://catalog.wccls.org/polaris/search/title.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.6&pos=3 here, ''The Providence Journal'' http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20141019/Entertainment/310199944 here (another local?:)), ''The Law Society Gazette'' https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/reviews/book-review-the-mother-court-tales-of-cases-that-mattered-in-americas-greatest-trial-court/5044088.article here, ''The Times'' https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-mother-court-by-james-d-zirin-2bzs3dph3zn here, ''The New York Review of Books'' http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/06/19/southern-district-court/ here, ''New York Law Journal'' https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202663325846/the-mother-court-tales-of-cases-that-mattered-in-americas-greatest-trial-court/?back=law here, ''Quest (lifestyle magazine)'' https://www.questmag.com/blog/the-mother-court/ here, ''Law Society of Scotland|The Journal: of the Law Society of Scotland'' http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/59-9/1014422.aspx here, and ''The Economist'' https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21605877-paean-oldest-tribunal-united-states-courtly-love here, it too meets nbook, so Zirrin has authored two books that are well known and have received multiple reviews meaning that he meets  and so is a '''Keep''' from me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:NBOOK||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: U|Coolabahapple}} and {{U|Animalparty}} have ably outlined the guidelines-based rationale. His first book was reviewed by ''The Times'' (London), ''The New York Review of Books'', ''The Times Literary Supplement'', ''The New York Times'', ''The Economist'', and the ''Providence Journal''.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-mother-court-by-james-d-zirin-2bzs3dph3znhttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/06/19/southern-district-court/https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/private/classic-suits/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/nyregion/first-if-no-longer-foremost.htmlhttps://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21605877-paean-oldest-tribunal-united-states-courtly-lovehttp://www.providencejournal.com/article/20141019/Entertainment/310199944 His second book was reviewed by ''The Sunday Times'' and ''The Spectator''.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/books-supremely-partisan-how-raw-politics-tips-the-scales-in-the-united-states-supreme-court-by-james-d-zirin-b9ql3gbc2https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/how-impartial-is-the-us-judiciary/ These eight reviews alone meet  criterion #3 and then some. The subject is notable. Any other problems - autobiography and overuse of non-independent sources - can be dealt with by editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I regularly edit AUTHOR AfDs.   In gauging the notability, writing a book that gets reviews published in multiple significant venues is seen as passing  # 3.  In addition  Zirin is frequently quoted in articles like https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/nyregion/a-new-york-court-celebrates-its-status-as-the-nations-oldest-but-others-arent-so-sure.html?_r=0 Judges Playfully Dispute Whether New York’s Federal Court Is the Oldest (New York Times), and his personal life, career and philanthropy are reliably sourced https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/arts/design/moma-redesign-art-expansion.html MoMA’s Makeover Rethinks the Presentation of Art. Even the book parties introducing his books get coverage in mainstream media https://search.proquest.com/news/docview/1836008037/fulltext/D2A2A6991F164AABPQ/1?accountid=10226  Supreme expert, an article in The Times (of London) about a celebrity book party for ''Supremely Partisan'' held in 2016 at the Savoy Hotel.  Mirin passes . Keep (as I wrote above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)