| Revision as of 17:09, 3 May 2008 editJaymax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,520 edits →David J. Schindler← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:06, 6 May 2008 edit undo68.4.134.32 (talk) →David J. SchindlerNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *'''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) | *'''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>http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/04/latham_watkins_to_free_stress.php</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) | *'''Keep''' He's been mentioned on a few lawblogs just of late in relation to Church of Scientology actions (of themselves notable) <ref>http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/04/latham_watkins_to_free_stress.php</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) | ||
| *Not COATRACK as defined by the astronaut and moon landing example on ]. He is a notable lawyer and these are his notable cases available in public records. All principle characters in the cases have their Misplaced Pages pages as living persons to prove notability, except for his first notable case on Petersen. But the Petersen case is included because he played a major role in the conviction of the other notable hackers. | |||
| *It's only fitting for a notable lawyer in a notable law firm to have a bio of notable cases. It's a nature of court case reporting that what the lawyer did is not obvious. But being the chief prosecutor, in the prosecuting team, or representing the client, every bit of a notable case is directly linked to his actions. Other deeper involvements such as obtaining plea agreements and building evidence for other cases are included. | |||
| *Some cases may be mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page of other parties. Philosophically, I can't see the reason of excluding the mention of the case in any party's bio. Practically, I observed that in other related bio's, the information is more about the person than just one case, and for a lawyer's bio, the emphasis is about the law and the court case. It's complementary. | |||
| *The possible copy right violation paragraph is rewritten. Anyway I would think quoting a short paragraph in an article is fair use. ] (]) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:06, 6 May 2008
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)
- Not COATRACK as defined by the astronaut and moon landing example on WP:COATRACK. He is a notable lawyer and these are his notable cases available in public records. All principle characters in the cases have their Misplaced Pages pages as living persons to prove notability, except for his first notable case on Petersen. But the Petersen case is included because he played a major role in the conviction of the other notable hackers.
- It's only fitting for a notable lawyer in a notable law firm to have a bio of notable cases. It's a nature of court case reporting that what the lawyer did is not obvious. But being the chief prosecutor, in the prosecuting team, or representing the client, every bit of a notable case is directly linked to his actions. Other deeper involvements such as obtaining plea agreements and building evidence for other cases are included.
- Some cases may be mentioned in the Misplaced Pages page of other parties. Philosophically, I can't see the reason of excluding the mention of the case in any party's bio. Practically, I observed that in other related bio's, the information is more about the person than just one case, and for a lawyer's bio, the emphasis is about the law and the court case. It's complementary.
- The possible copy right violation paragraph is rewritten. Anyway I would think quoting a short paragraph in an article is fair use. 68.4.134.32 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)