Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Futerfas


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Alan Futerfas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy declined on the bizarre ground that working for the Donald confers notability. There is nothing in the article to suggest that this is anything more than inherited notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is clear and concise! 4 articles in 5 seconds of Googling: The Washington Post, USNews, this article is 10 minutes old, Jewish telegraph Agency, Newsweek. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not convinced. See WP:NOTNEWS. Loads of people are the subject of a brief flurry of media attention; this is not the same as being notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just reread Notnews, and I am not convinced, so I guess that's that. I am interested ot hear what EEngs has to say, I know he has strong feelings regarding wikipedia being used as a newspaper. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While there has an incredible flurry of news activity regarding the subject during the past 48 hours, I'll bet sums that they will still regularly be talking about this guy for the next few years. From my past experience with NOTNEWS AfDs, some of which I !voted delete at, I have it found it better to wait some time after article creation, as it is easier to ascertain the level of good coverage as opposed to "They are writing articles on this guy? Me too!" which can just contribute to ref spam. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The only thing that makes me pause is that these sources are all saying the same news piece about him becoming Trump Jr's defence lawyer. It's likely that we'll see more sources coming out during the investigation, but right now there is a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL / WP:TOOSOON about it. What pushes it over the line to "keep" for me is I can't decide which article to redirect to - it could be Donald Trump Jr or it could be Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Or it could be something different altogether. Who knows? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * EXTRA Strong Keep The fact that they, it, is bare boned is not justification for deletion. If some of the wasted energy pursuing deletion, was apllied towards enhancing; this would benefit all.  The fact that an article does not already exist is astounding and those favoring deletion may need to consider that. --Wikipietime (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment So I've been poking around back in my time machine :) and I found some older sources which help against SUSTAINED (if that is going be invoked): he was lawyer of defendants in Mafia case back in 2016 and here he is important enough to be mentioned twice as the lawyer in a cyberattack case against JP Morgan in 2014. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage of Futerfas is very weak and prevents us from creating an NPOV article on him. Basically the Washington Post headline is a total attack "Trump Jr. hires a lawyer who defends mobsters". This is a back handed attempt at guilt by association. This is passing news, with no evidence that Futerfas as a lawyer is impactful. We should delete this article until we have thought out articles on the subject, not last minute news reports that are sensationalized to drive sales.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To continue on the problems with the Washington Post article, when someone writes that a victim was "an innocent teenager" they are clearly pushing a very specific point-of-view. No teenagers are innocent, and to describe them as such is to play them up as undeserving victims. They may well be, but the wording is clearly biased.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This passage later in the Washpo article tells me it is leading in a very biased way, and should be questioned as a good source that provides a good base to create a balanced article "He started his own firm the same year and expanded it over the years to cover a range of white-collar prosecutions, federal investigations and cybercrime cases." The whole "Trump Jr hires a mafia lawyer" is much less informed than "Trump Jr. hires a lawyer specializing in cyber crimes", which would seem to relate a lot more to some of the potential allegations against Trump Jr.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I did a search for Futerfas articles not mentioning Trump. There is a super lawyers profile, but I am not sure if that is reliable. Then there is this article about a case of someone accused of securities fraud who had Futerfas as their lawyer. Here is a link about a case that Futerfas argued before the supreme court  but it seems to count as a primary source. What I really want to see is a scholarly discussion of how Futerfas's actions have increased the rights of defendants, preferably something that does not have an underlying assumption that convicting people accused of crimes is always a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Strong keep - he is notable as a criminal defense attorney, particularly for the mafia and the Trump Jr only solidifies his notability. Here are some scholarly discussions, although I do not agree with the premise that these are necessary for notability of a criminal defense attorney. See   He is not Johnnie Cochran, but then again who is? --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Notable criminal defense attorney. In this case, working for notable clients means doing notable work, which makes him notable. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  02:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep always to be sufficiently consistent coverage to confirm to WP:ANYBIO. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  06:19, 19 July 2017 (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.