Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Strachman (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Strachman[edit]

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

The topic David J. Strachman stems from WP:ONEEVENT - the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar. The information on that murder and its aftermath can be sufficiently covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. The source information available on Mr. Strachman is not a written account of Strachman's life - e.g., it's not about his early life or career. Rather, the available source information on Mr. Strachman details some of the cases he has had as an attorney, primarily the lawsuit where he represented the Ungar estate. The first AfD was close because the nomination was based on security/safety of David J. Strachman.[1] However, as a biography, the Strachman biography topic does not meet WP:GNG and source information on the Strachman topic can be covered in the Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several of the comments in the previous AfD dealt with notability and should be taken into consideration by the closer. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we make a mistake when we do things like claim "the author has a notable book, therefore he is notable". Such arguments used to be regularly challenged and ridiculed, but seem to have somehow gained legitimacy in recent years with the rise of the (mis)application of subject-specific notability guidelines to exempt subjects from the general notability guideline. If we ignore the subject's notable work which should be irrelevant to this discussion, we are left with coverage of one event. The fact that the subject is an otherwise low profile individual that doesn't want this article to exist punctuates this BLP issue for me. Gigs (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (emphasis in original) So, yes, subject-specific notability is sufficient, even when general notability is unproved (the "also presumed" means the conditions are connected with an "or," not an "and.") And WP:AUTHOR does state authors inherit notability from their books ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work"). I am not voting, and can't debate this futher, since I don't have time to research and dig up more reviews of his book. Churn and change (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Qworty (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a competent professional does not automatically merit a wikipedia article. typically this comes up in vanity bios, but it applies equally here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Organization, per WP:BLP1E. The Ungar case is notable, and the bulk of the article is about the case, not about Strachman. Strike the material focused on Strachman; it's not that material to the Ungar case. Given the concerns expressed in the prior AFD, I suggest not leaving a redirect from David J. Strachman. TJRC (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing to Delete; the nom is correct, this is adequately covered in Murder of Yaron and Efrat Ungar without the need for a separate article Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Organization. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 24 October 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.