Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mortara

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mortara[edit]

[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)

WP:BLP of a lawyer and academic, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for lawyers or academics. The notability claim here is that he was lead counsel in a case that is "expected" to reach the Supreme Court -- except that according to the case's article, that's still purely unconfirmed speculation and not established fact. And as for the footnotes, four of them are his own primary sources "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers or organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability, and two are from university student newspapers, which would be fine for sparing use for verification of stray facts if he had already cleared WP:GNG on stronger sources but do not count toward the initial question of whether he's cleared GNG or not. There's only one footnote here that comes from a real general-market media outlet, and even that isn't so much about him as it passingly mentions him in the process of being about the case -- so it's not enough to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself either if it's the strongest source on offer. Staff profiles and university student media are not how you reference a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One of the articles is from Chicagobusiness.com, which seems like a reliable source. Another is an interview from the Mises Institute, which is a notable (if politically biased) source. This is in addition to the student newspapers and the NYT article mentioned in the nomination. I think this just barely establishes notability. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy organizations aren't media, so interviews on their own self-published websites aren't notability builders. Chicago Business is a short blurb in a listicle, so it would be fine for additional verification of facts if the rest of the sourcing were better, but is not in and of itself a notability-clinching source if it's basically the best source there is. As I already noted in my nomination statement, student newspapers don't help to build GNG at all, and the NYT article just namechecks Mortara's existence in the process of not being about Mortara. So no, none of these sources are enough to establish notability, barely or otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Fairly run-of-the-mill law firm partner. BD2412 T 05:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly per WP:NOTINHERITED. Arguing a notable case is not the same thing as being notable yourself. And the only other source of notability we have is one of those spammy "here is the latest set of young business people whose publicists want us to publicize them" 13-under-13 (or whatever) listicles. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to agree with the WP:NOTINHERITED line of thought in this instance, and listicles aren't a great foundation for a biography either. XOR'easter (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, Mortara falls far short of Wikipedia's notability standards. He is involved with one instance of notable litigation, but the articles about the litigation do not talk about him in any detail.

I am also concerned about the possibilities for a COI regarding this page; the creator of the page seems to be connected to the law school where Mortara teaches. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per my standards for lawyers and per David Eppstein. He was Inn of Court and clerked for SCOTUS, amongst other activities. Note that the Federalist Society is not a bar association. He's also not a tenured professor. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2021 (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.