Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana (2nd nomination)

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. The rough consensus indicates that the article has not sufficiently met relevant notability guidelines. –MuZemike 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana
• Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana for U.S. Senate

Brian Quintana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Here we are a year later and the article still has not established anything more than borderline notability. The tabloid sources the article has can't even agree if he is a "servant", "longtime political operative", socialite or producer. Even the basic claim that his is a producer can't be verified. Every article giving him more than a passing mention is a piece on some lawsuit or another.

We can't build quality BLPs based on tabloid reporting on a person that has done nothing notable outside of a courtroom. Brandon (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The rationale of previous AFD seems indicative that Thaindian News, New York Post, The Los Angeles Independent, Los Angeles Times, and Hollywood Reporter, and the many, many others [1] seem to meet WP:GNG nicely... and yes, his film producer work can be verified. That the article has not been improved would seem a reason to encourage its improvement through regular editing, but not deletion. And to the nom, just when did the Los Angeles Times become a tabloid? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  The LA Times isn't a tabloid, yet the only substantial mention of him is a six page article detailing his Hollywood life that was removed due to BLP issues. The LA Times article used in the article doesn't show anything more than he's in the reporter's rolodex. For this article to depict reality it would tell the story of a Hollywood socialite with legal problems, not a Hollywood producer and politician, of which he is neither. To be a producer you must have producing credit, not a vague job you get fired from way before the movie comes to fruition. He leads a life followed by tabloids, which we can not cite, thus leaving a skeleton of an article that is in no way based in reality. The article has stayed the same for a year, if not deteriorated further. Eventualism doesn't apply to BLPs, nor would anything of value be lost by deleting this 100 word article. Brandon (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  ... and neither are many of the other available sources.[2] What applies to BLPs is not being a violation of WP:NOT, not a WP:BLP1E, and having sourcable notability that meets WP:GNG. As the article is not in violation of WP:BLP, we do not delete simply over a claim that "nothing would be lost", specially for a BLP that meets WP:GNG, is cited to reliable sources, and can be expanded and sourced by more. Editors will (hopefully) look at the results of the Find sources above, and decide for themselves if the total coverage is significant, and whether or not the article improves the project by remaining and being improved through regular editing. His being in the news for his political endeavours for 2 decades seems rather conclusve. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Depends He is certainly not notable as a politician (a couple of failed primary contests) or a movie producer (unconfirmed). If he is notable, it is for his various lawsuits against celebrities. I have just added those well-referenced stories to the article; IMO they make him notable (probably not in the way he wants) and I would say Keep. But I see that stories about his lawsuits were removed in the past, as some kind of BLP violation, although that's hard to figure since they are part of the public record. If the lawsuits get removed from the article, then it should be Deleted because they are the only thing that makes him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with this summary. Brandon (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: No assertion of notability. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. He might meet WP:GNG, which says that people with "significant coverage in reliable sources" are "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", but note my italics. The coverage may not count as "significant" either, as GNG defines it. I don't see how a handful of court cases (restraining orders, a lawsuit and an assault conviction) are enough for notability. And it's clear, as has already been noted, that the court actions are his only possible route to notability. His work in film is sub-notable, as are his several unsuccessful forays into politics. This is a longstanding nuisance entry with frequent sock attacks and article ownership issues. Hairhorn (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Hairhorn on the sock issues, especially since I dealt with frequent sock attacks against the Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles with respect to Mr. Quintana. The only way the subject can be shown as notable is if the law suits and the negative aura surrounding him (both of which I'm sure can be referenced to reliable sources) were to be added to the article. Tabercil (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete — "...best known for his legal run-ins with various celebrities..." Anyone can file suit against another. It appears a number of his legal actions have been unwarranted and dropped without a decision in his favor. ttonyb (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep because the subject meets WP:N, having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. E.g., [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc., even, absurdly creeping into quotes in the NYTimes [9] for stuff he probably shouldn't be -- he even got over 250,000 votes in a US Senate primary this month? [10]. The nomination can't really be about whether he's notable or not; its really about the fact that a lot of his coverage is for kinda seedy stuff. Yet, seedy people (and please no one accuse me of a BLP violation because I'm proposing that he's seedy for purposes of this discussion, its not like i'm calling him a mook) can indeed be notable even if we don't like it. If the article is to be deleted, its because we don't want one on him--not because the press doesn't report on him regularly, because they apparently do. If he was, say, an engineer or inventor with this much news coverage, the article would never be nominated for deletion.--Milowent (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• So to sum up the debate so far: I think the consensus is that we've got significant coverage in multiple sources, but this is challenged on the basis that they're "tabloid sources" and that the article is a "BLP violation". I'm not sure that either of those challenges withstand scrutiny.

  "Tabloid sources"—Tabloid or not, these are sources that meet WP:RS and are therefore allowable on Wikipedia. There's no exemption saying "tabloid sources aren't reliable" or "tabloid sources don't count towards notability". If there's a feeling that there ought to be such an exemption, then an RFC would probably be the place to start, but deciding that someone's not notable simply because the sources aren't broadsheets or academic papers is definitely WP:IAR, and I think IAR needs a stronger case to justify it than has so far been provided. The fact that there's coverage means that the person's name is a plausible search term and so, everything else being equal, we ought to have something to say.

  "BLP violation"—BLP doesn't mean we can't say anything negative about a living person. It just means we can't say anything negative about a living person without an inline citation to a reliable source.

  A third challenge, that only MZMcBride raises, is whether there's an assertion of notability, but I don't think that holds water either. Assertion of notability is about CSD A7—it has nothing to do with AfD. At AfD you have to prove notability by evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, and that evidence is clearly available in the article, so the challenge fails.

  On balance I don't see why the legal stuff can't be included. It's important to ensure that the article remains NPOV by confining itself rigidly to a summary of the sources without any editorial comment from Wikipedians and without giving any particular aspect undue weight, but that can certainly be done.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear above: I DID add brief, sourced information about the lawsuits to the article. The sources were the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, and Fox News. These are major, nationally prominent media. Yes, the Post is a tabloid, and it does sensationalize, but it doesn't make stuff up; it's not a supermarket tabloid like the Enquirer. Fox News has their own editorial slant on things, but I think most people would consider them to be a citable source. And I think most would agree that the Los Angeles Times is a reliable source. Additional sources could certainly be found, since the suits are a matter of public record. As I noted above, this type of story seems to give "significant coverage" about Mr. Quintana; without these stories he is not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• If I can nitpick, "significant coverage" is not an absolute test of notability, which is why GNG contains this disclaimer: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article". So what is he notable for... taking celebrities to court? I don't see how that's really notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. Also, multiple non-notable acheivements (ie, suing celebrities, working in politics, film & event planning) do not add up to make one notable one. Any details that pass that bar can be included at Jon Peters or elsewhere, rather than filling a separate entry with self-promotional trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I agree with Hairhorn that coverage does not guarantee an article. To MelanieN, I would point out that significant papers such as the LATimes, Post, and others will from time-to-time carry what I would call, "surfing squirrel" stories. They are articles that are cute/human interest/fluff/filler, but hold little or no significance to major events in the "real-world". A "surfing squirrel" story would not guarantee a Wikipedia article. Indiscriminately filing lawsuits is probably not a reason to support an article. If the suits were cutting edge, significant, or maybe valid, I might support the article. ttonyb (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, even though a story provides in-depth coverage and appears in a Reliable Source publication, it doesn't count because you don't like it.. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Huh, I am not sure how you came up with this assumption — it is quite a leap. If you reread my comments, nowhere have I voiced an opinion about liking or disliking the article. My comments have been about the notability of the events quoted. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, coverage doesn't guarantee an article, but it establishes a presumption of notability. That's an important presumption that it's unwise to disregard. The GNG is very simplistic, and it does lead to anomalies, but the benefit of the GNG is that any editor can look at the sources and judge for themselves whether the GNG is passed. In other words, the simple pass/fail test in the GNG is the only thing that enables good-faith contributors to create articles without going through a committee process first. This is why a presumption of notability is established.

  WP:BURDEN is satisfied once an editor has provided inline citations to reliable sources, and once this is done the policy that prevails is WP:PRESERVE. At AfD, this places an onus on the delete side to show policy-based reasons why the reliably-sourced material may not be included. I'm afraid that I see no evidence of policy-based reasons to remove it save those I've already refuted above.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• DeleteStrong Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, strongly, per Hairhorn and the history of the article as spelled out by the nomination. Daniel (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it time to rewrite WP:GNG? I do not see it speaking about source content, other than saying it must address the subject directly and in detail... and this guy gets lots coverage over years for different reasons and yes, sues a lot. I never heard of him before this AFd and sure wouldn't vote for him... but the in-depth and significant coverage over a period of years is compelling. Its not a WP:BLP1E. Its not a violation or WP:NOT. So just when is the GNG not the GNG? Interesting paradox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Definitely time to rewrite WP:GNG. Or mark it {{historical}} and enforce some reasonable measures instead. Whichever. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - GNG exists for a reason otherwise anyone that gets trivial mentions will be in Wikipedia. Significant means in-depth coverage. Heck, I've had a center-spread and collateral articles (five) written on me. By a new "watering-down" of GNG, I would qualify. In future years as it gets easier to self-post on websites and make them look WP:RS will become a problem for Wikipedia as it is already taking place now. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

IF this guy doesn't meet GNG, we should delete about 1/2ths of all biographies next. He has more coverage, its just that apparently editors think he's scum or something and don't want to admit that.--Milowent (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Deletes are telling editors he doesn't meet GNG. Let's avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...and assuming there are hidden (unspoken) agenda's behind everyone's delete comments. ttonyb (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything, I'm questioning. Its not an uncommon thing for an article about a person with a slew of press coverage about something unseemly to get deleted.[11], [12]. Oftentimes BLP1E is cited. Here, where BLP1E doesn't apply, and there is ongoing coverage over time, the !votes go all over the place, and claims of "tabloid coverage" or "unencyclopedic" crop up. I'm not saying editors aren't acting in good faith, I'm trying to figure out how to describe this phenomenon.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Deletes are telling editors he doesn't meet GNG." I can't speak for others, but this wasn't quite what I said. I said that even if he meets GNG the page can still be deleted for lack of notability, a situation that GNG itself allows for. Hairhorn (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Coment Let's step back a bit and look at the nominator's reasons for requesting deletion:
    • His first sentence: "Here we are a year later and the article still has not established anything more than borderline notability" acknowledges a notability, even if "borderline", and seems indicative that WP:NOEFFORT can be a reason to delete.
    • His second sentence: "The tabloid sources the article has can't even agree if he is a "servant", "longtime political operative", socialite or producer." Here he implies that the sources available are all tabloids... which has been repeatedly disproven, and matters not a bit when such are WP:Reliable sources... and then he asserts that the sources cannot agree on whether the individual is a operative, socialite or producer... when there is no problem with him being all three, as all aspects of an individual's life can add to overall notability, and WP:BLP requires that all asserted and sundry background information in a BLP must be properly cited.
    • His third sentence: "Even the basic claim that his is a producer can't be verified'"... which is incorrect in that many reliable sources verify his being a film producer.
    • His fourth sentence: "Every article giving him more than a passing mention is a piece on some lawsuit or another." is also incorrect as there are sources available that give more than passing mention of his actions and life outside a courtroom.
    • His fifth sentence: "We can't build quality BLPs based on tabloid reporting on a person that has done nothing notable outside of a courtroom." If his notability is for being suit-happy over a multi-year period, his multi-year actions in a courtroom are fine for Wikipedia (IE: Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro (lawyer), and the "king of torts" Melvin Belli) as long as it is not a BLP1E or a violation or WP:NOT... and indeed, any quality BLP is built upon and depends on cited details used to flesh out the article giving it scope and balance, as long as they are in reliable sources.
    • User:S Marshall did a pretty fair job of refuting the points used in the nomination... refuted points which were, since refutation, still being supported in the "per nom" !votes. But AFD is not a vote, and it will be up to a closer to determine if the multi-year coverage of the different aspects of this individual's life meets the caveats of the GNG or not.
    • However... perhaps the article itself needs to be re-written to change its focus... but such would fall under a WP:ATD as a surmountable issue. But it seems here that if WP:GNG has failed the project in that its instructions are no longer seen as applicable it, needs (as as User:MZMcBride notes above) either a facelift or be rendered historical... and we must all accept that such will usher in a project-wide shake-up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I can tell the only person who thinks he is a producer is himself and journalists who don't check their sources. This seems to be an amazing example of "verifiability, not truth" gone wrong. Brandon (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

        @ User:Brandon: Please enlighten as to which WP:Reliable sources are now being found to be unreliable, so they may be taken off the list of RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

        Despite what Wikipedia policy might say, being a "reliable source" does not make everything that you say true. Especially when it is a minor fact unrelated to the article at hand. The LA Times article mentioned above that quotes him introduces as a producer, yet a another LA Times refutes that claim. In this case a reliable source doesn't even agree with itself. I'm really not claiming the LA Times isn't a reliable source, simply that because something is printed in a reliable source doesn't make it true. Hence "This seems to be an amazing example of "verifiability, not truth" gone wrong." Brandon (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

        WP:Reliable sources are not about "truth"... they are about WP:Verifiability... and until such time as the guidelines and policies are re-written, they are the compass which steers our ship... not any one editor's opinion of truth. And it is to be noted that policy and guidline are not in cotradiction here. If an article quotes the man announcing himself as a producer, then the article may offer that RS as offering that specific quote, as the RS is making a verifiable report of his words. If another RS later states that despite the man's own saying so, that he is not a producer, then that is exactly what that second source offers... and both may be included as part of a BLP. An RS is an RS is an RS. Of course, focusing upon this one irrelevent factoid does in no way dismiss the significant coverage of this man for over 20 years... and upon which the article meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

        And by the way (and irrelevant or not), I found multiple articles from 2008 through 2010 that assert Quintana as a producer...

        Huffington Post, November 29, 2008: "Brian Quintana - a co-producer with Peters on the upcoming...",

        Thaindian News, January 14, 2009: "...producer Brian Quintana says that he may run for Californias 31st Congressional....",

        Newser, August 31, 2009: "Two co-producers of Superman: Man of Steel are embroiled...",

        LA Weekly, March 25, 2010: "Hollywood producer Brian Quintana has announced...",

        New York Press, March 28, 2010: " Brian Quintana -- the producer best known for his lawsuits...",

        LA Weekly, April 7, 2010: "Self-Styled Hollywood Producer Quintana Wants To Speak At Dem Convention",

        LA Weekly, June 9, 2010: "...that Brian Quintana got 14.2%. He's a fund-raiser and Hollywood producer who lives in Boyle Heights...".

        So can you maybe share the one you found that says he is not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        Comment - The problem with many of these "WP:RS" headlines are they indicate the same Delete sentiment voiced in this AfD. For example, " Brian Quintana -- the producer best known for his lawsuits..." or "Self-Styled Hollywood Producer Quintana Wants To Speak At Dem Convention". Where are several WP:V third-party neutral sources that list all the movies he has produced? They're hard to find because like his article, things about him seem to be circular, self-posted, or mentioned in trivial passing because he's never been elected. If you run enough times, sure you're going to get press clippings and the reporters will echo what was previously written. Then, for the reporter who might want to check Wikipedia to see if this guy is notable by our standards - viola, he is because he has an article here. Sorry, no sale. Strong Delete. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        I offered those RS only in response to repeated assertions that no sources call him a producer... and I wished to be shown the RS that says he is not one... but it has not been forthcoming. I am in full agreement that being a "producer" for one unmade film gives no notability. However, any reporter who depends on Wikipedia will soon receive dismissal for not doing his own job, as one is never notable because of being on Wikipedia, one is on Wikipedia because notability elsewhere may meet inclusion guidelines. But perhaps a far bigger issue raised here is how in some circumstances the GNG can be a big failure, and that failure need addressing and revision. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        Your statement, "I am in full agreement that being a "producer" for one unmade film gives no notability" confirms he is non-notable. Strong Delete re-affirmed as he fails WP:GNG. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        Wow. A very incorrect conclusion... and I do hope editors take note... as I have repeatedly stated that whether or not he is a producer is irrelevent, as his notability is dependent on 20 years of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for all the aspects of his life which received coverage... specially as no person can be labeled as but "one" thing if coverage is for so many things... which makes him easily pass the curent version of WP:GNG. And please... do ahead and repeat and embolden your !vote a few more times. Someone surely missed it the first three or four times you did so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        Thanks for commenting on the !vote. It's no different than the other posts by another editor who continues assert stuff that surely no one else "missed it the first three or four times you did so". No disrepect or NPA meant, but if one editor is willing to assert WP:VALINFO over and over, surely others have noticed your opinion and vote too. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

        ? Neither I nor anyone else has asserted VALINFO, as that implies an an unsupported ILIKEIT. What I have seen however, is major newspapers called "tabloids" with it implied that the journalists with these major reliable sources are purveyors of untruth. I have seen 20 years of in-depth and significant coverage of an individual dismissed as irrelevent per WP:JNN. I have seen arguments that treat the policy of WP:V as if inapplicable. So perhaps discussing the failure of the current version of WP:GNG might be a bit more helpful than repeated assertions of JNN bumping heads with the sheer volume of in-depth coverage over a 20-year period. Does the article require a rewrite to readdress focus? Maybe. But if the GNG is to be ignored or dismissed in efforts to remove an article, then it's time to seriously reconsider rewriting or removing the GNG itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, it's moot whether this person is a "producer" or not, since no film actually names him as a producer. His work as a politician also falls below the bar of notability, ditto event planning. What's left is a quartet of trivial court cases: two restraining orders (not notable), an employment related lawsuit (not particularly notable) and a criminal conviction (not notable). There's nothing else. Hairhorn (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@ User:Hairhorn: His being a producer or not is pretty much irrelevent as his notability is not for such. If his work as a politician is below par, he's in good company among the many other politicians whose work is also below par. But if that below-par work gets coverage, it gets coverage. Politician or event planner or litigious citizen... and he can be any one or he can be all three... what we are left with is 20 years of significant coverage of various aspects of his life in multiple reliable sources.[13]. I personally do not like what I've read of him and would never vote for him. But a perceived triviality of a topic according to a few Wikipedians is never grounds for deletion, specially as 20 years of significant coverage of his life and its events in multiple reliable sources, per guideline, supports a different interpretation. Again, if 20 years of significant coverage can be so eaily dismissed, its time to either re-write the GNG or render it historical. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• This article along with the one above calling him "Self-Styled Hollywood Producer" make it very clear that he's not actually a producer and has simply tricked few journalists into believing so (which then got repeated ad infinitum). Brandon (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  Appreciate the link. Thank you. The 2009 article by Harriet Ryan shares just when and why he was hired in 2007 and goes into a little detail about his broken relationship with Peters. Quintana is not a likeable fellow, and gets coverage in the press. Do we punish him? Or do we punish the media? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - BTW, want to know why I'm here at the debate? As a WP:CAL member, I regularly go our deletion sort to see if there is an article that needs to be saved or preserved. I tried my hardest to find reliably sourced information for this individual. And, I soon came to the same Delete rationale expressed in this AfD. Quintana gets press because his information is self-published unverifiable press that he received because he is an "also-ran" or "law suit seeker." Strong Delete is re-affirmed. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  When did Quintana buy the Los Angeles Times or LA Weekly or Huffington Post or Newser or Thaindian News? Or when did these reliable sources stop being reliable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is it possible to think of this article as multiple WP:BLP1Es strung together (once one tosses the politician and producer red herrings) relating to various celebrity lawsuits? I suppose all human lives are WP:BLP1Es strung together, but not in the manner that this particular article is. In any case, the article still needs substantial rewriting to remove puff. Calling this man a film producer in the initial description, for example, strikes me as highly misleading, whether or not we decide that it's technically accurate Vartanza (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  One time in court would be BLP1E. Doing so many times over many years for differing reasons and against different individuals become multiple events. Notability doesn't require that he be famous or popular.... Notability is determined by length and depth of coverage, and not the coverage's content. A rewrite? Certainly. Which way to go with it? And how do we prevent the re-insertion of puff? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how four non-notable court cases add up to one notable event, coverage or no. Hairhorn (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the sheer number of court cases tried in the US, a case may find notability when receiving significant and continued coverage in national news. His 4 doing so makes them notable x4. So no... its not BLPIE, as it is multiple events in relationship to this individual that have recieved such coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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.