Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Raut


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Anant Raut

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet notability test. I found trivial mentions of work beyond work cited in Wikipedia. There is no independent source cited for his two 2007 awards or available online, although this information has been parroted on many websites that crib from Wikipedia throughout the web. Many other attorneys could have won the same awards in 2007; they surely do not merit Wikipedia articles.

Working on high-profile litigation is not itself notable, especially when hundreds of attorneys can work on a case and perform very minor suporting roles. For instance, just one nonprofit worked with at least 600 attorneys on Gitmo litigation as of 2008, but merely appearing on a legal team for a notable case does not meet notability guidelines. Almost every big law firm lawyer works on high-profile cases; Wikipedia does not list hundreds of thousands of lawyers merely because of that.

Additionally, fails WP:NOSALESMEN parts 4 and 5. His contributions are not significant and are primarily a personal resume: the article consists solely of his former and current jobs, his schools, the names of his former clients, two awards, and his work producing a Powerpoint. The article focuses on what his clients have done or been accused of, or what other government actors (like John Yoo) did -- not what he has done. Signing on to be part of a legal team is itself not notable. The sole exception in the article is a link to a blog from 2007 that cites a four-slide Powerpoint presentation that Mr. Raut created. Creating four Powerpoint slides does not merit a Wikipedia entry, since there is no indication in the article the slides had any effect whatsoever on anyone or any entity.

The article's other claim about his actions, that "Mr. Raut and fellow habeas attorney Candace Gorman were two of the first people to dispute the administration's charge that approximately 30 former Guantanamo detainees had returned to the battlefield," is unsourced; the cited source (number 5) does not mention Mr. Raut's and Ms. Gorman's supposed stance. Nor is it clear why disputing a Bush Administration stance (something half of Americans, if not more, did) is notable.

"Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable". Currently, Mr. Raut is a functionary on a congressional committee and thus far less notable than ambassador to a foreign nation. Note: the article was created by a WP:SPA Yipee8f93k (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Yipee8f93k (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  19:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly a non-notable lawyer. This article is a relic of the 2000s when we allowed the abuse of Wikipedia to be used as a POV-pushing database for absurdly directory like coverage of everyone on death row in the US and everyone in any way connected to Guantanamo Bay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per all. This is a straightaway WP:PROMO article. -Hatchens (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTINHERITED. I note that he fails my standards for notable lawyers; he's done laudable work as a defense attorney, but so have many others. His current job as is a nameless, faceless Congressional staffer; again, good for him but it fails WP:NPOL. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2020 (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.