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 keep. Consensus seems to be that there's enough continuing coverage to show this person's notability beyond a single case. ~ mazca ^t/c 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gura[edit]

The only notable thing that he has done is serve as an attorney on the Heller case. His role there is already mentioned in the Heller article. None of the other information in his personal article is notable in any way. Idag (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd normally say no, but he was the lead counsel on the case and it is considered a landmark case. I think it is an expection to wp:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't done anything notable apart from the briefs and oral argument that he conducted in that case. In the future, he may well go on to become a bigger figure in the gun rights debate, but he isn't really notable until he does so. Idag (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The brief and the oral argument is pretty significant. I'm sticking with my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If you remove everything that has nothing to do with his involvement with the case you are left with a very small paragraph, which would only provide an exception to WP:BIO1E if it grew too large to be reasonably expressed in the event's article. That article is a little wordy and the subject does seem to get alot of coverage for his involvement with the case, coverage that can only get larger as states interpret the decision of the supreme court. ZabMilenko 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That looks like an important role in an important case. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)^{User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Weak delete - seems a fair article, but equally it seems a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. Disembrangler (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per the Levi Johnston precedent. Gura is surely a more significant subject for an encyclopedia compared to an article about a candidate's daughter's ex-fiance (the latter article now containing details about the criminal record of the mother of the candidate's daughter's ex-fiance).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the Johnston incident, and the issue with Gura is not that he's trivial like Johnson, its that his only notability is the Heller case. His contributions to that case are already noted in the Heller article (the case itself clearly being notable). This article does not add anything about those contributions that isn't already mentioned in the Heller article and none of the stuff that it does add is notable. Idag (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E was written for. As he is only notable for one event, his information should be included in that article. I would go with merge, but the relevant info is already there. لenna vecia 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Brett A. Thomas (below). لenna vecia 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is lead counsel on the immediate follow up case of McDonald v. Chicago which SCOTUSblog expects to be granted certatoria in the Supreme Court next term. See A new Second Amendment case. He's also lead counsel in 5 more Second Amendment cases that I'm aware of. Hoffmang (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my position, I have no problem with this article being recreated if he wins a few more cases at the Supreme Court level. At the moment though, the chances of a cert. petition being granted are about 1% (Justice Roberts at one point commented that the Court grants about 70 petitions out of 10,000). This article is, at best, premature, as evidenced by the fact that only two sentences in the entire article deal with notable content (which is already mentioned elsewhere). Idag (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many cert petitions are given an entry on SCOTUSblog, and does it matter that the domain experts in the media might differ with your initial assessment? Hoffmang (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I was in the cert.-guessing game, I'd point out that its unlikely for the Court to grant cert. on something that only three circuits have considered. However, none of this actually matters because the Supreme Court will ultimately make its decision in due time without regard for what Wikipedia or SCOTUSblog has to say. If that decision is notable and it involves Gura, then there might be a reason to recreate this article. Until then, this whole thing is speculation, none of which is notable. Idag (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's counsel also in in NRA v. Chicago, which is also considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, so he's clearly involved in at least two events notable enough for Wikipedia entries. He's also involved in numerous other cases that have been noted in the press. A Google search for "Alan Gura" on, say, washingtonpost.com returns 133 results, some from this year, and not "about" Heller in any meaningful sense (e.g., [1]). A Google news search for "Alan Gura" as of June 16, 2009, shows quite a number of articles that mention him in the last month, indicating his ongoing notability. I would argue that, even if he weren't continuing his notability, that Heller might qualify him, anyway, as one who "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field," but he's clearly still generating news that may cause people to want to look him up in Wikipedia. Brett A. Thomas (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (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.