Talk:Robert Amparan

09/20/2006 :: astrogeek :: When I added this record I originally came to Wikipedia to see if there was some biographical information for the attorney that took on the defense of someone prominent in recent headlines. There wasn't any information until I added it for Robert Amparan. I believe starting history on this lawyer is worth doing, but delete if you must...


 * I found absolutely nothing other than the recent publicity for this attorney. He doesn't pass WP:BIO. I happen to be casually acquainted with attorneys who have represented far more notable clients on far more serious and newsworthy charges. Those attorneys don't have articles. It's possible some of them might even pass WP:BIO. The point is that this guy doesn't. I'm going to leave this for at least a few hours before I consider AfD, so if another editor would prefer a merge, be bold. Erechtheus 02:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. This should be in AfD.
 * The more I think about it, the more I think a minimal merge with the Karr article with a redirect of this title as a potential search term makes sense. It's my plan to go forward with such a course of action after a bit of a comment period on that proposal unless this generates comment that demonstrates it's not a good idea.Erechtheus 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. A good compromise. astrogeek 9/25/2006
 * I live in san Francisco and have heard of Mr. Amparan before. He's also representing another individual in a noteable case that was recently covered in a local newspaper.  He's also an attorney with a local prominent defense group, which includes Tony Serra.  I'll add the information to this page.  As far as WP:BIO, note: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events."  I don't think it needs to be merged, just expanded. Agrippina Minor
 * agreed 67.162.94.102 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this page should be merged with John Mark Karr's. It is best to have individual entries about different people. Even though Mr. Amparan's page is a result of representing John Mark Karr, he has many other clients. I think his entry should be expanded.

If anyone feels slighted because s/he does not have an entry, then by all means, start an entry for that person, too, if one is merited.BaliPearl 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually just completed the merge prior to checking the talk page for any new comments since yesterday. I'm not particularly opposed to Amparan having an article as long as it meets the notability guideline WP:BIO. Anyone who feels the article met that standard or has additional information to add that will get it up to that standard can certainly undo the merge. I'll continue to monitor this article. If someone restarts it and I'm not satisfied with the state of the article, we'll talk more. At worst, we'll end up at an AfD. Erechtheus 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus appeared to be removal of the merge so I did so. He's the attorney in an ongoing high profile case.  He meets, at least currently, the WP:BIO requirements.  Agrippina Minor
 * I went ahead and removed the merge template -- we've been down that road, so there is no use for it during at least the near future. I'll probably revisit in a week or so. Erechtheus 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that the Karr matter has been resolved, does anyone see need for this article to exist? Somebody above mentioned at least one additional high profile case. Can someone add information about it? Erechtheus 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to delete it or merge it. Just let it alone. Someone created it because there was a desire to learn more about Robert Amparan. BaliPearl 04:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)