Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Berman

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. No prejudice against re-creation if the subject does become the US attorney. Happy to userfy upon request, please just ask on my talk page. A Train^talk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Berman[edit]

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

Article fails GNG. Berman appears to only have received coverage due to the fact he was and/or is being considered for appointment as a U.S. federal prosecutor. May be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen articles on US district attorneys deleted, but in general they are in the long run held to be notable, although no ruling that they are absolutely notable exists. The postion he is being considered for, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is especially important because it covers Manhattan, and thus is key to US securities enforcement, and is one of the more populous districts with large amounts of business going on. There are articles on every appointed (as opposed to interim) holder of the office since 1958, and many articles on previous holders. Although I did not review to see how many are most notable for this position, and how many notable for other positions held. Still, until Berman is actually confirmed as the USDA, and even more so until he is actually nominated, he is clearly not notable. If his nomination does occur, even if unconfirmed, it might propel him to notability, but nothing right now suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy As per John Pack Lambert, if/when confirmed and commissioned he will undoubtedly pass GNG. And, because this might occur in the very near future, I am changing my initial nomination to userfy. Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or sandbox in user or draft space. If and when he gets appointed, he'll definitely be notable — federal prosecutor for New York City, as in Preet Bharara, is pretty much a no-brainer — but merely being a possible candidate for appointment to an office that's still up in the air as of today is not a notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he's appointed, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- ~~I think we all agree that in the absence of a nomination, Berman will be a one-event phenom (his interview). If he is nominated, we can argue his notability.~~ Berman was a defense lawyer in the Bridgegate trial. He represented the deputy director of the Port Authority. He exceeds WP:BLP1E If confirmed, notability is almost assured. His popularity with the administration continues (and attracts press). It seems counterproductive to delete the article now, only to reinstate it in a few weeks. If another is nominated for the post at S.D.N.Y. I will see that this article is deleted. Rhadow (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today — that would turn us into a repository of campaign brochures, because we'd have to keep an article about every non-winning candidate in every election on exactly the same grounds. We do not judge includability by what might become true in the future — we judge it by what's true today, and then permit recreation in the future if circumstances change. It's almost painfully easy for an administrator to simply restore the original article if that happens — it takes one click on one button, not any sort of complicated process — so the amount of work involved in recreating the article if and when those circumstances change is not enough of a burden to justify suspending normal practice. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Dump it if you want. I find your argument about how painfully easy [it is] for an administrator to simply restore the original article not very compelling. Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up.
That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.

It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat -- Let's say I want an article about A. Amaranath. I type it in, get a red link, and an invitation to create an article. Yes, there will be an invitation to contact the administrator who closed it the last time, but I suspect it's rare that an editor who has an opportunity to put her name on a new article will want to honor the original author or wait for the administrator. Or am I misunderstanding human nature? Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Berman is nominated for U.S. Attorney S.D.N.Y., the article will be valuable as a first stop for a reader. If he isn't, it should go. The question in a TOOSOON discussion is how much leeway we give. The AfD process probably gives it another two weeks of life. We don't have a means to sunset articles that grow stale over three weeks or three months. If we keep now, there is a good chance that if he is not appointed, a worthless article will be hanging around in three years. On the other hand, if his nomination proceeds, it's a waste of time to delete, with the likely result that the work already done will not be recovered, but created again from scratch. At the rate the administration is going, we won't see more discussion of Berman till 2018. Look at the progress of the nominees for DOL and EPA. Two months David Zatezalo has been on the docket for MSHA. For good order's sake, I'll stash a copy of Berman's article. Then, whatever consensus we arrive at will be okay. Rhadow (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User-fy if he's nominated for US Attorney he'll meet GNG. As it is, I don't see it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 11 November 2017 (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.