Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carey R. Dunne


 * 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Carey R. Dunne

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

BLP does not meet WP:ANYBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. Most of the coverage is focussed on the cases rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law,  and Massachusetts.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The clearest WP:GNG-point I've seen is (which doesn't seem to be Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). There's more than passing mentions on the individual at,  and .  (NYLPI) may be independent enough to be interesting here, and there may be something WP:N+ in this WSJ  I haven't managed to read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm super surprised that this article would be targeted for deletion. Dunne has honors from various legal organizations; mainstream media has discussed his role in the Trump cases; and his colleagues, including Mark Pomerantz, have bio articles. Llmeyers (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems with the sources cited. Please identify ones with problems so we can edit! Llmeyers (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/trump-probe-prosecutor-made-his-name-defending-wall-street-banks
 * This isn't a Bloomberg profile, it's an article by a journalist, Greg Farrell. Llmeyers (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, I'm seeing now that I misread the reason for why the article was proposed for deletion. But I still think @Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right, and that there is info on the individual, rather than only the cases he was involved with. [Also, of course it's going to focus on involvement in cases; he's a high-profile lawyer]. The page also includes discussion of his service for NY State and NYC Bar organizations. Llmeyers (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * WP: ANYBIO -- well-known or significant award or honor... please see Awards section on the article; there are several. Widely recognized contribution to Supreme Court cases on President Trump (see C-SPAN citations, see New York Times, etc). This is all extremely well-accounted for. Llmeyers (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not find the Awards section convincing. They certainly don't have their own articles and seem similar to other awards given within the circles of a specific profession. As an analogy, many wines get awards, but few wines are actually notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry @Anachronist, I meant to slash my above comment as well. I went back to strikethrough a few things after I understood more about MrsSnoozyTurtle's reasoning. I explained my thoughts below in more depth. But overall I agree with you, that the Awards section of the article is not the most convincing for keeping it. It's more Dunne's role in the New State courts, his role as President of the NYC Bar Association, and so forth. Llmeyers (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Leaning to delete because of WP:1EVENT. I am not convinced the awards are notable, and if he hadn't been involved in the Trump case, I am skeptical he would merit an article. The relevant information could be merged into New York investigations of The Trump Organization. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep  :WP:1EVENT notes that in the case of a highly significant event where the individual's role is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I think Dunne certainly qualifies.
 * I also think having links to New York investigations of The Trump Organization is definitely important, but doesn't totally cover it. Dunne's colleague on the investigations, Mark Pomerantz, has an individual page which similarly includes his role in the Trump cases as well as his other work as a federal prosecutor.
 * Similarly, Dunne's page is not only relevant because of the Trump investigations. His work as a white collar criminal defender for Davis Polk is also notable –– as was the well-publicized murder trial of Lonnie Jones and his subsequent exoneration. That case was remanded by the Supreme Court of New York in 2006 and led not only to Jones's exoneration but also an order by the New York Court of Claims that the state pay Jones $1.8 million in compensation. [See info from National Registry of Exonerations here.] Llmeyers (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Llmeyers Hi again! This is your first afd, so when it's done you will have learned some stuff about afd:s. 2 things: Only write keep once on a page like this. You don't have to strikethrough or anything, but remember that going forward. Also, "Mark Pomerantz has an article" is one of the weaker arguments you can make in this context, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there's one thing Wikipedians don't trust, it's Wikipedia. Which is for the good of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thank you... ack, learning a lot today! Sorry to clog the discussion page, everyone. Llmeyers (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One other thing: It seems that Dunne's presidency of the NYC Bar Association is really notable here, potentially just as important as his role in the Trump investigations. I think there's little reason he didn't have a page before the Trump investigations –– he certainly could have. Llmeyers (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @MrsSnoozyTurtle, can you describe any nonreliable sources used on the page? Vast majority of the page's citations come from reputable independent sources: Washington Post, WSJ, NY Times, C-SPAN, etc. Llmeyers (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Llmeyers. The reliability of those sources isn't the question here, it's how they relate to the individual. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it! If you read the articles, you'll see that some of them are not ONLY about the cases, per say, but focus on Dunne's background & professional history. This is also true for the articles that discuss Pomerantz and Dunne's resignation. Llmeyers (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per my usual standards for lawyers. Past president of the largest city bar, partner in a major and notable firm, significant public service, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding these, per those standards: trying a notable case with its own article in Wikipedia; arguing more than one case before SCOTUS; service to major committees. Llmeyers (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, ONEEVENT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See Bearian's post. Llmeyers (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2022 (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.