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. MBisanz talk 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Cynamon

[edit]
David J. Cynamon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No secondary sources in this WP:BIO that has been tagged with the advertisement tag for a year without improvement. Another Guantanamo attorney, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. THF (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: some of the sources mentioned but not in the article when I nominated it make my nomination one of a Weak Delete. We've deleted people more notable than Cynamon, but we've kept people less notable than him. THF (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say he is notable through his legal work which has attracted sustained media attention over many years in a variety of areas.
I would agree with you, Yachtsman, if this man were only known for one high-profile case, but I have found a number of totally independent high-profile cases: the Kuwaiti prisoners at Guantanamo bay, a racial bias cases involving Texaco and Circuit City: [3], [4], a rather interesting case (in terms of "firsts") involving satellites: [5], cases on Veterans, some corporate stuff. The list goes on.
The bottom line here is that there's more than enough material to write a fairly extensive article on this man using reliable independent sources. This is the fundamental basis of WP:Notability. The fact that no articles are written exclusively about this man himself is offset by the fact that he is quoted in dozens of articles, often extensively, and over a fairly long period of time, in mainstream media outlets, in the context of his legal work. The more I look into these sources in detail, the more I am convinced we should Keep this. I am changing my opinion to a Strong Keep on the basis of my reading the sources in more depth. Cazort (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are sources that provide coverage for his clients, perhaps, but not for him. The cites you povide are for archives of the LATimes and Washington Times from 1996 and 1986, the articles themselves not listed except by abstract. I looked at your other cites, and found no evidence of the coverage you allege show coverage over time with extensive quotes from the subject. Perhaps you can show me where these are and the cites? Other cites include links to legal opinions, which would name the subject as counsel (requiring a subscription). Indeed, after looking at your links in greater depth, I am even more assured that the subject is not notable. 3 links are as I pointed out earlier, and 76 links are to cases in which the subject argued as counsel available to an attorney with a Pacer account, or through Lexis. My vote is unchanged.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the Guantanamo case, the most detailed coverage is this washington post interview: [6], fox news: [7], MSNBC: [8]. In the veterans cases: [9], [10] I can't access the full articles for any of the articles on the bias or satellite cases, but I think they do contribute to establishing notability. Just because a source is not available online doesn't mean it's not valid as a source!!!
I also want to express, it's a little unclear to me why everyone is arguing to delete here. This discussion is starting to look more and more to me like everyone is simply asserting "Not notable, not notable". I'm not getting where that's coming from. In particular, the sentence that I feel is the key issue here which no one has really refuted, is "there's more than enough material to write a fairly extensive article on this man using reliable independent sources". Isn't that what the deletion discussion is about? Cazort (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because notability is not inherited, and you keep directing us to interviews about the subject's clients. In other words, you are making the argument more clear. The subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client, not from independent sources showing why he is independently notable. The links should be within the article for each client, not under a separate page about the attorney.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A notable lawyer is notable through his or her legal work. How else is a lawyer to be notable as a lawyer? It sounds like you're defining notability in such a way that no lawyers would be notable as lawyers.
More Sources This article: [11] covers David J. Cynamon in some depth, providing an independent source for some of the basic background information as well as providing an argument for notability, in the context of him receiving an award (for the cases I mentioned above). A second source for the same reward says he has been recognized for his "outstanding civil rights contributions": [12], in reference to multiple cases including the Circuit City and Guantanamo cases. Cazort (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He won an award for pro bono and civil rights work in 2008. That's great, but how does this make him notable? A notable lawyer gains notability not because he represents people, but because he or she does something outside of that area that gains notability. He must have done something such as: (1) significant works of legal scholarship (like writing the leading work on the Federal Rules of Evidence, for instance); (2) becoming a Judge or head of a legal services corporation; (3) gaining notability for his actions separate and apart from representing a notable client (a movie being made about him, a book being written about him, etc.). Representing people in court is typical for laywers, even for 35 years, but it's not "notable". How do I know this? Simple - I'm a lawyer, and so is THF. I hope that answers your question.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like you're using the word notable in the common usage sense, not WP:Notable. Your idea that a lawyer cannot be notable from representing people is entirely in conflict with wikipedia's policy of notability--which says that the lawyer would be notable through representing people if the representing receives significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Wikipedia has nothing about certain activities counting or not counting more than others. Nor do I think that you (or anyone) being a lawyer makes you any more qualified to judge what lawyers should or shouldn't be included on wikipedia. I know that personally, I have executed very bad judgment in past deletion discussions, when it has come to judging the notability of mathematicians and statisticians, in spite of me knowing much more about which scholarly publications, awards and recognitions, appointments, etc. mean more. I almost think that I may even have a conflict of interest there...too easy to either want to promote my own field or to judge others as not worthy of inclusion just because I know I myself am not notable, or maybe because I'm scared I am notable and don't want the exposure of having a page written on me. I dunno...I just don't think that's a valid argument. Cazort (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, I have a wider circle for notability than Yachtsman. I'd consider substantial independent biographical coverage about a lawyer in the Legal Times or American Lawyer or lay newspapers sufficient, without requiring books being written about the lawyer.
The award in question isn't independently notable; a quick run-through of some recent award winners shows no one with a Wikipedia article, much less a Wikipedia article that mentions the award: it seems to be the sort of award given to two big law-firm partners a year to encourage their firms to buy a couple of tables at a dinner. (In this case, the award was given by WLC to someone who sits on the WLC Board, so the newsletter about the award doesn't even count as substantial independent coverage.) The DC Bar magazine, which is thrown away mostly unread by its 90,000 involuntary subscribers every month, is essentially reprinting a WLC press release.
I don't think the Circuit City case where he's quoted by the LA Times is notable. [Lowery v. Circuit City] isn't a big precedent-setting case, and the plaintiffs had a "low degree of success." THF (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:Notability is that it doesn't matter whether a person is a big-shot, but it matters whether they have received enough coverage to have an article written solely on the basis of material that is available from reliable independent sources. I am seeing more than enough of such material and such sources here. I also feel like no one has refuted my argument that a meaningful article could be written using exclusively data from sources that meet wikipedia's guidelines. Maybe this would potentially open the door for hundreds of pages on lawyers. So what? The fact is...this guy is a guy I can imagine (myself and others) looking up on wikipedia. When I see a lawyer mentioned in the news I often think--who is this guy? What's his history? What does he do? And I often look him up on wikipedia. I see this topic as enriching wikipedia in some minor but important way. I maintain Keep. If an administrator wants to close this discussion, that's fine, but it will be done with me being a strongly dissenting opinion. I see nothing gained by excluding this topic from wikipedia and something potentially lost. Cazort (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I am being too snarky!!! Cazort (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, this is not a vote. Also, I keep reflecting on this and I think it would be useful here if the people disagreeing with me could point out explicitly what is it about the wikipedia notability guideline that is not met here. The guideline WP:N reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Furthermore it reads ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." We're clearly in the "less than exclusive" here but I'd hardly call the coverage I am seeing trivial, and I certainly do not think any original research is needed to bring out enough facts to write a modest-sized article. I also was concerned/unclear about your arguments being based on [is not inherited], so I read these guidelines, and I'm not convinced that you all are interpreting this in the proper way. Every example given on that guideline is based on people making arguments based on association. The argument I am making here is based on multiple sources that name and quote this man, describe his actions, etc. And as I said above it's not based on a single case but he has been covered in other ones too? Cazort (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are these "standards" you speak of? Are there any wikipedia guidelines you can reference here? This is looking increasingly irrational to me, people seem to be refusing to actually engage any of the points I'm making. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 16 March 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.
More