Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Carpenter


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles H. Carpenter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Associate at law firm whose notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by virtue of being a co-counsel on a couple of barely notable Guantanamo cases. Flunks WP:BIO: every source is either WP:PRIMARY or about one of his underlying cases. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep    There is fully enough information for this particular individual both with respect to his leadership in the GB cases and in other notable cases to justify an article. I am not sure that al of these afd nominations were equally well considered. DGG (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I reviewed nineteen articles in the A-through-C of the category, and made ten nominations.  This article has a lot of footnotes, but they don't constitute significant independent coverage about the subject: two primary-source law-firm pages; a blog; a single sentence quoting him in the Legal Times; a copyright violation that doesn't mention Carpenter; a New York Times article that doesn't mention Carpenter; a UPI article that doesn't mention Carpenter; two articles that mention Carpenter in passing that are really about the case; an F. Supp. citation (every lawyer practicing in federal court has these--I have several myself. Not evidence of notability); a quote in the Missoulian; and the same Martindale entry that every other lawyer has.  The other two cases in the article are not independently notable; the same Westlaw search can generate the same sort of WP:PUFF paragraph for tens of thousands of lawyers, even assuming that Carpenter was the lead lawyer on those cases, which may not be the case.  Not notable. THF (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assume there would be tens of thousands of notable US lawyers, that's about 1 or 2% of the profession.-- and after all, that might even include the nominator. TOO MANY is not an argument for deletion. NOT ME isn't an argument either. By the way, I agree with most of the other nominations (at least as far as merging, not keeping as separate articles) to the extent I've tried to find sources so far. Most of them do seem to be well considered. DGG (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability - if there is a notable person by this name it appears to be the Australian author born 1916 - and nothing here meriting a merge elsewhere. GRBerry 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just ftr, at no time during my representation of GTMO prisoners -- which continues to this day, after 19 years -- was I an associate at a law firm.
 * Not disagreeing with the decision, about which I was more relieved.
 * CC 184.166.66.148 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: As the law firm website shows, subject is a partner and the head of the firm effort in the GB litigation. Three items cited -- Montana bar vote to close GB, Taibi attempt to recuse CJ Roberts, investigation of CIA tape destruction -- distinguishess cases from ordinary GB litigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.84.193 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete as per THF's exhaustive explanation of the sourcing/notability issues above. Ray  Talk 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I believe his dogged attempt to pursue the CIA over its violation of the court orders to preserve evidence that would show his clients were innocent merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Request to closing administrators -- I know that this afd has run for close to the normal period. But I would like to request this article be relisted, so I include additional material.  Thanks!  Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every'' Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, it is provided by the existence of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject, separate from the single event which initially gave him prominence. There is no evidence of that here, althoguh there certainly is for Mr. Darrow. If an independent scholar should write a book on Mr. Carpenter, we would definitely revisit this debate. As for your failure to abide by WP:AGF, that is quite tiresome. Is it inconceivable that there might be serious editors who have noticed that a significant portion of an entire category of articles is likely to fail our notability standards, and have embarked on a legitimate cleanup effort of this swamp? Although THF and I have disagreed in the past, I have the highest respect for his devotion to Wikipedia, and the energy he pours into maintaining its quality. Ray  Talk 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted.  It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees.  The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example.  Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books.  Darrow's notability arises not from his work, from the later coverage he received in print and film.  Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion.  I also find the personal attack on the nominator, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message, to be in rather bad taste.  The nominator, as is this author, is an attorney, and as such, special preference should be afforded to an attorney's professional opinion as to what makes another attorney "notable" in that profession.  Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers.  The subject's role in representing his clients, including requests for spoliation as against the CIA as noted by another contributor, are not independently noteworthy.  An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability.  Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently.  For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone.  As it stands, the subject's lack of notability dictates that the article be deleted.  The author may want to use the links in the article with the articles related to the clients that the attorney in question represents. Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Darrow would have been notable had he never written anything but a legal brief or an argument. An attorney's efforts for a client may for technical legal purposes be treated as those of the client, but in actuality they are his own, or really good trial attorneys would never command the fees they do. I have previously noticed the likelihood of those in a profession over-deleting material of others in their profession; this is not a personal reflection,  I've even noticed i automatically tend to be skeptical of articles on librarians. A claim to delete because "we know better than you that he is not notable" should be disregarded. A strong attack against all articles of a given type, or people in a given specialty, should be treated with very strong skepticism.    DGG (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. An attorney's interest is aligned with that of his client.  One does not become a "better" lawyer for one's client because one drives a Lotus or charges "really high fees", though this may be your opinion as a layman.  I have seen public defenders that could wipe the floor with attorneys considered superstars.  Your position that we are overly critical of our fellow attorneys is noted, but also discounted at the same time.  The standards of the profession, and the role an attorney takes in representing a client, are matters known uniquely by other lawyers.  Thus, to an attorney, representing some person who's a "really bad guy" is as relevant as representing Joan of Ark.  Attorneys gain notability not simply by doing their job, which includes representing sinners and saints, but by gaining notability OUTSIDE OF REPRESENTING THEIR CLIENTS.  The client is the one with notability, not the attorney who advocates for or against their interests.  Yet that is what we have in this case.  Carpenter's notability arises because he represents a couple of GTMO detainees, which is about as notable as representing a mass murderer in Texas, or a single mother in Baltimore, or a drug user in Phoenix.  It simply does not amount to the level of being notable.  Notability is simply not ascribed to an attorney because his client is notable.  It is not inherited. Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2009 (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.