| Revision as of 17:31, 30 April 2008 editJustallofthem (talk | contribs)1,455 edits Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David J. Schindler | Latest revision as of 02:37, 5 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''delete'''. Arguments top keep are stronger than those to delete. The fact that as KleenupKre says, the article is not about Schindler, rather a bunch of cases he was involved in, makes this a fairly easy decision. Copyvios also not helping. ] ] 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | |||
| :{{la|David J. Schindler}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|David J. Schindler}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Multiple issues. ] article on non-notable attorney shot through with copyright violations. ] (]) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | Multiple issues. ] article on non-notable attorney shot through with copyright violations. ] (]) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak keep'''. Those were some high-profile cases he prosecuted as an AUSA. I don't see that his private practice has kept him notable, but notability doesn't expire. It's a terrible article, though, and doesn't need to rehash each and every case (assuming that isn't the copyvio part). --] | ] 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' as apparent ] and ] article. The article is hardly about Schindler at all, it is about several cases he was (somehow) connected to but says little about his actual role in them. Some of those cases are notable and have their own articles, some are not. ] (]) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' He's been mentioned on a few lawblogs just of late in relation to Church of Scientology actions (of themselves notable) <ref></ref> I only found this page because I was checking to see if he had a bio page to update accordingly. (but remove all the crud) Can the copyright violations please be pointed out on the talk page. ] (]) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Notability not established. Being involved with semi-high-profile clients doesn't, by itself, confer notability. If he had advanced some novel argument that others have used successfully since, or had he gotten some client off when nobody thought it was possible, perhaps...but I don't see notability here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] | ]</span></small> 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' An attorney's clients do not make one notable ''per se''; a lawyer must be in the news himself or herself to be notable. ] (]) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. Verifiable, seems to be significant. Article needs to be cleaned up and copyvio text removed. --] ] 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
| == References == | |||
| <references/> | |||
Latest revision as of 02:37, 5 February 2022
- 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 delete. Arguments top keep are stronger than those to delete. The fact that as KleenupKre says, the article is not about Schindler, rather a bunch of cases he was involved in, makes this a fairly easy decision. Copyvios also not helping. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
David J. Schindler
- David J. Schindler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Multiple issues. WP:COATRACK article on non-notable attorney shot through with copyright violations. Justallofthem (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Those were some high-profile cases he prosecuted as an AUSA. I don't see that his private practice has kept him notable, but notability doesn't expire. It's a terrible article, though, and doesn't need to rehash each and every case (assuming that isn't the copyvio part). --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as apparent WP:COPYVIO and WP:COATRACK article. The article is hardly about Schindler at all, it is about several cases he was (somehow) connected to but says little about his actual role in them. Some of those cases are notable and have their own articles, some are not. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep He's been mentioned on a few lawblogs just of late in relation to Church of Scientology actions (of themselves notable) I only found this page because I was checking to see if he had a bio page to update accordingly. (but remove all the crud) Can the copyright violations please be pointed out on the talk page. Jaymax (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. Being involved with semi-high-profile clients doesn't, by itself, confer notability. If he had advanced some novel argument that others have used successfully since, or had he gotten some client off when nobody thought it was possible, perhaps...but I don't see notability here. Frank | talk 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete An attorney's clients do not make one notable per se; a lawyer must be in the news himself or herself to be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable, seems to be significant. Article needs to be cleaned up and copyvio text removed. --Oldak Quill 16:15, 8 May 2008 (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.