Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Roper

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Roper

This article was deleted as a WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of notability) but the speedy was disputed and a clear consensus to undelete this appeared at WP:DRV. Listing this article now for regular AFD process. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Impressive credentials, but doesn't meet WP:BIO, in my view. [1]. PJM 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain: it certainly asserts notability in a way. I'm just not sure what actually constitutes notability for an American lawyer and wonder if there may simply be something wrong with Wikipedia's guidelines. There must be internal criteria for importance in lawyerdom which could be applied. I have no idea how significant it is to be "Chair of the Intellectual Property Committee of the American Bar Association's Litigation Section", for instance. u p p l a n d 13:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Harry Roper" lawyer gets fewer Google hits than "Guy Chapman" cyclist. Happy to change vote if any impartial lawyer types want to come along and state that these claims to faim consititue real fame. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete In my legal opinion, this is a "pumped-up" CV. Xoloz 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment It would help if a few of the high-profile patent infringement cases were mentioned in the article. Does "high profile" mean that they were covered by mainstream media? --Oberwolfach 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally speedied this after tagged by another user. I did so because I didn't consider a claim basically saying "this guy's really famous! Honest!" as a legit claim of notability, and ,as Xoloz says, it's basically a pumped up CV. No real evidence is given that he's anything more than a pretty successful lawyer. I would also argue that even if he is involved in some high-profile cases, it doesn't mean everyone involved in such cases is notable. -R. fiend 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless his status as a premier lawyer is established. I agree with R. fiend, it reads more like an embellished CV than an encyclopaedia article. Movementarian 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. At least as notable as Kadee Strickland. Bio here [2]; I'd say being lead counsel winning a case with a $150 million verdict meets the notability standard. Monicasdude 02:59, 29 December 2005 (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.