Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Carreon (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carreon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charles Carreon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pro forma nomination on behalf of 70.15.136.149. Expressing no viewpoint on the deletion Hasteur (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was having difficulty and just left after screwing it up several times, planning to come back later. I am saying delete because while his work may be notable, he himself is not notable nor important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.136.149 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since he is connected with something that just happened today a few hours ago in addition to the sex.com case I think we can wait a little before passing judgment on his notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What event? I just ran his name through Google News and got nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is representing the interests of FunnyJunk against TheOatmeal. Specifically FunnyJunk is suing for defamation and demanding 20,000 from TheOatmeal. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's still not notable, despite recent events. He doesn't fulfill WP:BIO, didn't in 2008, doesn't now. EdFortune (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just adding this so it's clear. Not notable. If he becomes notable in the next several days then vote keep. As of right now, he's not. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability requirements entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only known for the one case. Doesn't look like he himself received significant external coverage during that case. I'm saying delete per WP:ONEVENT Dac04 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing how much coverage he has gotten as a result of his lawsuit against the oatmeal, I'm changing my stance to keep Dac04 (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) - As per The Devil's Advocate. Wait if this current case will gather media attention. Bluefist talk 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm fairly new here, but wouldn't the fact that he sued sex.com, runs FunnyJunk and has now had a notable run-in with The Oatmeal make him notable? - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I got part of that wrong. He doesn't run FunnyJunk. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question "[W]ouldn't the fact that he sued sex.com ... and has now had a notable run-in with The Oatmeal make him notable?" -- No. He did these things as someone's lawyer, not as a principal involved, and the lawyer engaged is quite frequently non-notable, even when the case is notable. It's possible he could become notable, if there is media attention given to his strategy, tactics or behavior, but there's no indication of that -- indeed, no indication that the media is paying him the slightest bit of notice at this time. For instance, his sending a cease-and-desist letter isn't in the least notable -- that's what lawyer's do. It's like saying a mail carrier delivering a letter is notable, or a sanitation worker throwing a trash bag into a garbage truck is notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your claim that "He did these things as someone's lawyer', not as a principal involved" is factually incorrect. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunks-lawyer-personally-sues-the-oatmeal-creator/
        • Delete Agreed. As an attorney, I represented a well-known defendant on appeal, but even if you searched the web looking for my name in connection with the case, it doesn't come up. If he became notable because of that case (or even because of this case), it would largely be a result of self-promotion. - UCCF (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • These are both reasonable answers - now I understand notability a bit better I see your point. As he's a lawyer of little note (doesn't seem to have created case law?), and I now see that he doesn't own Funny Junk but is merely being their lawyer, then I suggest deleting the article. - Letsbefiends (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would agree if this was an ordinary lawsuit, but in this particular case the lawyer's behavior itself has become quite notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only not notable but effectively unsourced. The Domain Name Journal "article" is little more than a self-promotion piece which largely conflicts with the information in the wikipedia page. For example, the cite says he is licensed to practice in Oregon (inactive) and does not say he practices in Arizona. If the article is kept, it can be improved with a cite which demonstrates he was licensed in Oregon and California, as documented in 2005 and 2006 when his license was suspended by both states due to unlicensed practice of law in Canada and using his client's money to pay his own debts. [[1]]Oblivy (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    changing to Weak Keep -- I still don't think he's going to prove notable long-term, but we don't know that now and his notoriety is on the upswing due to his recent public behavior including (reportedly) suing Inman and the charities. Better to divert the effort expended on this campaign towards cleaning up the article so it's an accurate reflection of who this guy is and is not. NB: I have serious doubts the photo is appropriate for use on WP since it was uploaded with a claim to ownership by a now-deleted user (who may be Carreon's sock puppet, but let him say that in public).Oblivy (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Appears to have originated from a sock-puppet account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Carreon&oldid=253709955 Original article contains instructions for copy editor: "this is where the facts of the RL.com case need to be added.". Microbat (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per comments above, just being a lawyer for something that may be a high profile case does not make one notable in itself, unless there is something innovative or highly publicized about the lawyer himself. There also seems to be no further notability criteria that he meets. Sodaant (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable and not sourced. There are many other Wikipedia's pages about famous lawyers that need love Toffanin (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's no inherent notability to be gained from working as a lawyer; arguing on somebody's behalf is just part of the job, as Beyond My Ken wisely suggests. I see little sign that independent sources have lavished coverage on Carreon (as opposed to coverage of/by clients &c) so I don't think this article passes the GNG right now. If Carreon gets substantial independent coverage in future, then he may be notable in future and we could write a decent article at that point. bobrayner (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a citation to a reliable source, in the form of an interview with him on bloomberg.com. I've also added a reference to the book he wrote. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete : No notability, all sources on the article seem to be Primary from TheOatmeal. Bloomberg might have a source, but then one source may not be enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete and merge some of the contents to Sex.com as all the sources primarily focus on TheOatmeal, hence lacks notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Moved to week Keep see below.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the sex.com lawsuit was very famous, inspiring a whole book, none of the other cases he was in seem to be significant. If either the RL.com or Oatmeal cases got significant wider press coverage, I'd say keep as someone who goes beyond WP:ONEVENT. Is there anything to indicate they're notable? As for merging to Sex.com, there's nothing to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There is no material which warrants a merge. It is irrelevant who this person sued or who this person is suing. Our benchmarks for notability include WP:BIO and the general notability guidelines, both of which this subject fails to meet. It should also be reiterated that this article was deleted once before via consensus; little has changed to affect an outcome. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete Carreon is widely covered in "Sex.com: One Domain, Two Men, Twelve Years and the Brutal Battle for the Jewel in the Internet's Crown" (check "search inside this book" at the Amazon listing to confirm). Still, while I smell the possibly of the Oatmeal battle pushing this past ONEEVENT, I don't see sourcing that demonstrates it has, as yet. --joe deckertalk to me 23:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Weak Keep. TDA has been keeping at trying to find a source that is both moderately reliable and contains in-depth coverage of Carreon outside of sex.com, and I think with this Tech Dirt article I think there's now a case. BLP1E does not require (in my view) two separate events each of which must be independently, fully notable, but something less than that that adds up to full notability for the individual spread well over multiple issues. Finally, if we're going to reference the WP:BLP2E essay, well, my own reading of that essay seems to directly contradict how it's used so far in this discussion. Maybe I'm missing something. --joe deckertalk to me 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The following two sources show where he got in-depth coverage in connection with the sex.com case, one being a news report about him suing his client for money he was promised: [2] [3]. Also, here is an interview that was done with him well after he stopped being a client where they asked him about the case and subsequent developments regarding sex.com: [4]. Regarding this business with the Oatmeal, in just the past day it has popped up in Salon, Boston Business Journal, and Seattle PI where Carreon is mentioned and specifically mentioned for the comments or reactions towards him, not his client. Given that this business with the Oatmeal broke yesterday we would be remiss not to consider that more is to come such as this article that just popped up: [5].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is basically a WP:BLP2E. He's not independently notable for the sex.com case (his article was previously deleted in 2007), and he's certainly not notable for the Oatmeal case either. Do appearances in those two stories, several years apart, add up to notability by our standards? I don't think so. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't he have transcended the BLP notability requirements in the fact that he is involved in legal proceedings that of significantly unusual action raise them to the level of notability? Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, notability doesn't transfer like that (assuming that the legal action is notable, which is debatable). Not everyone involved in a legal action is notable, it depends on what they do, how unique or interesting their strategies are, what kind of media attention they get etc. Sending a "cease-and-desist" letter isn't notable, and never will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Robofish: What the essay that you have linked to (Wikipedia:BLP2E) actually says is that there is no BLP2E policy and "arguments invoking BLP2E as a reason someone is not notable are outside of policy and fallacious."
      • Yeah, I realised that as I used it - I meant 'BLP2E isn't a policy, but it should be'. But actually, having reconsidered this guy after the more recent coverage he's received, my position has changed and I think now it's a Keep. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems to me that while Carreon only comes up intermittently, he does come up every few years, and having information about previous events will be useful next time his name comes up, rather than deleting it (again). While the comparison to a mailcarrier is apt, it is not entirely relevant - a mailcarrier, for example, who did something unusual like delivering all mail wrapped in ribbons would be notable, and there's a good chance that Carreon is not a generic under-the-radar lawyer. Gbonehead (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are some of the recent links on the Oatmeal issue: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Those sources all discuss the lawyer specifically regarding the nature of his involvement in the case, not merely his actions on behalf of his client. Given his prior involvement in the sex.com case got him some one-event notability this level of coverage clearly moves him beyond to general notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article gives him exposure for a trivial event. mleguen 09:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even more reports focusing increasingly on Carreon himself with regards to this Oatmeal situation: [11] [12]. Once more this points to Carreon having notability beyond the sex.com case and thus constitutes a strong argument for keeping this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/06/15/funnyjunk-lawyer-charles-carreon-isnt-afraid-of-the-oatmeal/ CallawayRox (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable lunatic. The dispute between websites may be notable, but one unscrupulous attorney [15] in a sea of millions is not. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 01:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some additional detailed sources covering Carreon himself: [16] [17]. All these news sources clearly go well beyond the routine bits of news coverage and this on top of focused non-routine coverage Carreon himself got for his involvement in the sex.com case adds up to independent notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; as pointed out, The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute exists (which is still somewhat dubious for being notable); the lawyer involved is not. --moof (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's making himself famous again, and is no longer anything like a BLP1E - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both on the grounds that he is now in the news for two different kinds of activities (Sex.com case; Oatmeal and Streisand Effect) and because deletion arguments around unfolding events should be postponed, on the grounds that if, later, a subject becomes clearly notable, the original work on the article will be lost. (Call this a 'weak inclusionist' argument.) - cshirky (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep due to significant discussion of the subject in relation to different events (so merging to sex.com would not work, for example). I fear that Mr. Carreon is about to realise that having his PR create an article on him may not have been the smartest thing he ever did. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's not a 1E, per Devil's Advocate et. al. Sceptre (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. We already have The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute - Alison ❤ 18:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as required by WP:MAD. At a minimum, Charles Carreon should redirect to The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute and deletion is out of the question. CallawayRox (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanity piece per BLP1E. The last thing we need are articles on a ambulance chasers filing vexatious lawsuits. The legal garbage may be notable, but as Alison says, we already have articles on that. The Garbage Skow (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as CallawayRox has said. Yesterday, I would have said delete, but it's different now when Forbes is covering this story. Roodog2k (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Delete This user does not meet WP: N. He is a non-notable lawyer and is only known for one case, which by itself fails WP: Notability (Events). Also, please see WP: NOTNEWS. We are not a newspaper, and we do not have articles that report on non-notable happenings, like this article. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Electriccatfish2, when you say he's known for only one case, do you refer to the sex.com one, or the Oatmeal one? --j⚛e deckertalk 23:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was known for sex.com litigation before this latest dust-up and was in the news now and then for cases brought in Oregon. Added some sources. Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've already heard of Carreon three times this week and haven't even been to Wikipedia, or The Oatmeal in that time. Surprised to find a deletion discussion going on about him. Seems to have earned his notability at this point. Bastique ☎ call me! 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've struck out my delete comment. While I wouldn't want Publicity hungry freaks to always have an article on Wikipedia, this guy deserves an article to showcase himself. [I'm not serious]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources already exist and the situation will likely improve over time. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable for more than one event, plenty of reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are ample sources for an article about the subject. His notability is questionable, but he's been on the "wrong side" of enough high-profile cases to have gained notoriety. (Why would an editor nominate for deletion just as the subject is beginning another high-profile case? Why not wait until after this case settles and see whether any notability persists?) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you asked me a couple of weeks ago, I would have said delete. Since then he's made himself quite notable (and notorious). Stev0 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, someone known for filing a lawsuit against IndieGoGo (a fundraiser service website), the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation for his own interests deserves to be remembered. Sergiopll (Sergiopll) 16:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems Beyond My Ken's comment on June 12 has come true: "It's possible he could become notable, if there is media attention given to his strategy, tactics or behavior..." All those who said Delete on June 12th had a defensible position, but since that time this attorney seems to have become the story through his strategy, tactics, and behavior. When evaluating concensus on this one, I'm not sure the earliest comments can be given as much weight as the more recent ones, which tilt towards Keep due to the significant media coverage recently. Brianwc (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given his recent actions. He's become the focus of media attention and subject of several articles. --Replysixty (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think many of the people voting delete are doing so because they don't like the guy. We must remain neutral, and as such look at the fact that his popularity is increasing -- even if it's through his douchebaggary.☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article meets all the criteria necessary for an article. It's well sourced and the subject is notable in many ways, from the sex.com litigation to the recent mixup with Inman. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 17:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the point of Wikipedia is to answer the general public's questions "who is this person?" After all the recent media coverage, Wikipedia would be failing in that public service is this were to be deleted. --ktappe (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Perfectly said. TJIC (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the notability here is laughable. Wikipedia is not the Internet's echo chamber. Mr. Forrest (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! There are no reliable sources of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.77.137 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ironically this article is only up for deletion because of the publicity he gained in the recent case (Oatmeal), which proves the article is worth keeping to have a history of events.--Johannesbauer (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy has leaped into the limelight and has started to approach Jack Thompson-level notability. I caution against deletion comments based on WP:IDL: just because it came from the web, doesn't mean it's non-notable. --Bobak (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This entry is well sourced, and I do not believe it qualifies for the non-notable deletion category. Since the original (re)creation of this entry, Mr. Carreon's notoriety has increased significantly. Given the recent press attention and actions by the subject it seems likely to only become more noteworthy in the future. Morgewan (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe he fulfills the criteria for being notable due to having been mentioned in several news websites recently, and is likely to become more notable as the case develops further. Wagken (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unfortunately the guy is notable at this point, as opposed to two weeks ago, and it's likely that people will look to Wikipedia to answer the question "who is this guy?" In fact, I think people would expect an entry.TeaganK (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He's all over Ars Technica, and various other news sites. I certainly think he's notable now if he wasn't at the beginning of this AfD. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is another instance of having plenty of sources, but the person isn't notable outside a flash-in-the-pan incident. Putting up a page on him just because he did something to gain the ire of folks on the Internet is not reasonable. Basing a BLP on this sets a very bad precedent: anyone who ticks off Anonymous, Reddit, or any other chat board could wind up with a page on Wikipedia, based on nothing more than their name being splashed over blogs and news sites for 15 minutes of fame. His capacity in the sex.com case is not notable, since he was just acting as the attorney in that case. That leaves us with... nothing of substance. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question here looks like it was created in 2008 -and not created in response to ticking anybody off. R. Baley (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it was. He was a non-notable BLP that slipped under the radar. That he got splashed across blogs for a few days doesn't make him notable either. Claiming that it does is the bad precedent I was referring to, as that would give any target of the 'net's ire BLP standing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sadly, he's become notable. I do wish he hadn't. htom (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many many people are coming to Wikipedia to get encyclopedic information on this extremely notable (indeed infamous) person without the unavoidable bias that exists on the many sites that he is suing. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - We were considering deletion before The Oatmeal incident, and I don't see why we should change our decision. Just because he's an element in something that's currently news doesn't mean he's consistently of interest. He fails to meet the notability guidelines on WP:BIO and his details should be merged in relevant articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdFortune (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The policy is just about as definitive as we can get in regards to this matter. He wasn't notable before this particular case, and "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." He may be notable after the case, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. VanIsaacWScontribs 10:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how WP:CRYSTALBALL works. You can't invoke the crystal ball clause against others for predicting that he will remain notable while gazing into your own crystal ball to determine that he will not remain notable. He is notable (not just newsworthy) now and there is no reason to believe that the notability will be fleeting instead or enduring.
As for the "He wasn't notable before this particular case" argument, I am not at this time notable. Does that mean that if I robbed fort knox and brought about peace in the middle east tomorrow I would remain non-notable? WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says that most newsworthy events do not qualify. Not all. This is one that does qualify. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no prediction stated, implied, or intended in my !vote. He is not currently notable by Wikipedia standards. Several comments above state that we should wait and see if he becomes notable because of a current lawsuit. But it is completely irrelevant whether he may meet notability standards tomorrow or next year, only whether he is now. He's not. WP:CRYSTALBALL was simply that we can't speculate that he may meet notability in the future, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is that we can't use news coverage of a lawsuit for which he is counsel to establish notability, as there is zero indication that this particular lawsuit is going to impart any lasting notability on any of the lawyers involved. VanIsaacWScontribs 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to quote the exact paragraph of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that supports your claim that "we can't use news coverage of a lawsuit for which he is counsel to establish notability"? It looks like you are not seeing the word "most".
This is not to say that we only have news coverage. We have magazines (Wired, Forbes), a book by Kieren McCarthy, major tech blogs (Boing Boing, Ars Technica, Techcrunch Techdirt, Popehat), as well as salon.com, the Oregon State Bar bulletin, the California Bar Journal, and Domain Name Journal. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Carreon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142251581"