Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Oved

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. Arguing to keep based on sources that may come into existence in the future is weak. If such sources are written, the article can always be recreated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Oved

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lawyer, fails WP:GNG; WP:NORG, WP:NOTCV. Routine coverage of cases, article is very much a CV and there is no notability in sources or elsewhere. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Business, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Mr. Oved had a wikipedia page before the Hans Niemann lawsuit, then probably it should be KEEP just on the basis that it's a weak page but not offensively so.

If this page was created in anticipation or in the shadow of the Niemann lawsuit (this is a world-wide news story arising from the world of professional chess), then DELETE. The person does not appear to be of any significance, and should not be using Wikipedia in such an opportunistic manner. Jdxcrow (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "lawyer to the stars" isn't a reason to have an article, most are name drops or just cases he's worked on. I'd expect a lawyer to win cases, nothing terribly notable about any of them. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Various WP:RS mention that he certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Check his list of highly notable clients: Cat Cora, Alex Sapir (the son of Tamir Sapir), Tiësto and Rebecca Minkoff, Zinedine Zidane, Christian Vieri, Paolo Maldini, and Andriy Shevchenko, and they are not quite non-notable cases that were not won. Clearly a notable attorney who has enough notability for Wikipedia. Snowseven (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having clients is what lawyers do. We need to see why these cases are notable or he's just another joe doing his job. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Oved is now a major player in a large lawsuit as part of the Carlsen-Niemann controversy, which may result in an increase in the number of sources that mention him. Whether those sources provide SIGCOV remains to be seen. AviationFreak💬 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current sources are weak, but that seems to be changing. Another Q is whether this should be an article about the person(s) or the firm. – SJ + 05:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the page does seem to be a SPA promoting the subject.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first, substantively, he's just not notable as a lawyer; see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. He's been a licensed lawyer for less time than me. He's represented lots of notable (albeit not famous) people. I don't list all my notable clients, but if you wish, I'd be glad to drop some names, with clients' permission of course. Representing notable people or organizations, or suing notable businesses, does not make a lawyer automatically notable by extension. Secondly, I am strongly opposed to autobiographies on Wikipedia. In 2007, that could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable to try to sneak in a social media page masquerading as an encyclopedia article. To be blunt, it's theft of our services, and mis-use of a charity's resources. Thirdly, the combination of the two would be in violation of several rules of professional ethics. Tagging DGG. Destroy any remnant of the article and ban all the users who contributed to this mess. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2022 (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.