Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Chesnoff


 * 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   no consensus. ( X! ·  talk )  · @971  · 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

David Chesnoff

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

This was tagged as a speedy. Due to the length and the presence of numerous references, I believe a fuller discussion here is warranted. The subject, an attorney, does not appear to be notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No appearance of notability.  -shirulashem     (talk)   17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this comment requires explanation if it is to be taken seriously, given the nature of the article and volume of sources. Cazort (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BIO, notability exists if the person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I interpret this to mean that the person has to be the SUBJECT of the published articles, not merely mentioned in them.  -shirulashem     (talk)   20:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I have a different interpretation of guidelines (I think a subject can be notable if they have received significant coverage across a large number of articles which are written about other subjects but contain substantial material about them), I want to point out that Chesnoff is the subject of this article: about him being a murder subject.  Cazort (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep on the basis of a high volume of coverage: (1350 google news archive hits, the vast majority are him, there are a few others about a different man by the same name) spanning 84 to the present, with heavy coverage from 90 onward, work with a number of very high-profile cases and clients.  In addition to his legal work, he has been the suspect in a murder case:  which is ironic, to say the least.  I've only glanced at a handful of the hundreds of articles out there that mention this guy, but many of them seem to mention his accomplishments as fairly substantial.  I.e.: .  Here's an article (not public access) that describes him in somewhat of a narrative:, relating a case in which he was personally involved.  This book:  reads "He is nationally regarded as a brilliant lawyer who has taken on impossible cases and clients." and then also remarks on the rather unusual situation that he has not once represented a client who wanted to cooperate with the government in order to reduce their sentencing.  This case seems extremely clear-cut to me and I think the tag as speedy and the previous comment to delete are unfounded as they do not show any effort to look for or address sources.  Cazort (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be careful about what we're relying on as sources. For example, the quote above reading "he is nationally regarded as a brilliant lawyer ..." is from a book written by a friend of the article subject! See this blog post that states "Another outstanding defense lawyer, and friend of both mine and Mickey's [the book's author] is David Chesnoff of Las Vegas."  -shirulashem     (talk)   21:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that would make it not a reliable source. But the volume of coverage here is overwhelming, I maintain my recommendation of strong keep, and I think it would be very far out of line with wikipedia policy if this page were deleted.  Cazort (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DID YOU NOT READ HIS NOTABLE CLIENTS? HE IS EVEN ADVISING MICHAEL JACKSON'S FAMILY It is clear that the delete comment is completely unwarranted. Most of the notable clients are backed with supporting cites. Actually read the references, and you will see that Mr. Chesnoff is one of the most accomplished defense attorneys in the country. Do you think all those major news sites have it wrong too? I think not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CLICK ON ANY OF THESE LINKS: I don't have time to respond to the false statment that this article is not backed by evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  [[Special:Contributions/19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.martindale.com/Chesnoff-Schonfeld-A-Professional/1067665-law-firm-office.htm]

q=cache:GU_E3dZYhqIJ:www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/19/copperfield.probe/index.html+chesnoff+copperfield+cnn&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us    ^ url=http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:9tUJpJIcuO8J:www.kocorner.com/boxing/category/Tyson-DUI-Case/+chesnoff+mike+tyson&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ^ http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06pl3jD8tf4yg/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daylife.com/photo/06pl3jD8tf4yg&usg=__aSbRSAraiOanOsEkT8HveluZvBg=&h=416&w=610&sz=44&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=lkkrZvqBY4MlPM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchesnoff%2Bmike%2Btyson%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1 ^ url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/22/lkl.01.html ^ url=http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4908 ^ http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2008/12/1205_suge_ex_tmz_01-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tmz.com/tag/David%2BChesnoff/&usg=__w2WJXY-Y77h8JsWJlYt1jSrqpzI=&h=300&w=274&sz=27&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=SiEER2bsiCGhqM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Bchesnoff%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26um%3D1 ^ url=http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pokerroad.com/pokerazzi/5-16-08/phil_ivey_david_chesnoff.png&imgrefurl=http://www.pokerroad.com/pokerazzi/5-16-08/&usg=__0nmDlOWGGiG8ra755c03Z6be600=&h=158&w=185&sz=43&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=al1Ojw5TUbV6NM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Bchesnoff%2Bivey%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26um%3D1 ^ http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/2744-poker-pro-shawn-sheikhan-facing-deportation-to-iran ^ url= http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/05/neb-philanthropist-faces-vegas-casino-debt-charge ^ url=http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/08/if-youre-in-las-vegas-and-in-trouble-call-david-chesnoff/ ^ url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4377933.stm ^ ur=http://www.annadavid.com/articles/chesnoff.html ^ url=http://www.martindale.com/Chesnoff-Schonfeld-A-Professional/1067665-law-firm-office.htm Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chesnoff"
 * Comment I agree with you very strongly, in terms of keeping the page, and I also think the nomination and comments to delete were a bit hasty and do not address or take into account the huge volume of sources here. And yes, that irritated me when I saw t.  But I want to encourage you to keep the discussion constructive.  Comments like "I don't have time to respond" can come across as dismissive to other editors.  If you edit wikipedia, other editors will waste your time--that's the nature of the beast.  99% of the time, they are not doing it intentionally and it doesn't have anything to do with you.  WP:Assume good faith is a good guide.  This is important, because we are all sloppy at times, I certainly have made my share of bad or misguided edits or recommendations.  Cazort (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps someone would like to rework the article to make it clear that Chesnoff is notable because of his celebrity clients. In rereading the article, I do note that he has represented a number of well-known figures, but this information is buried 2/3 of the way down the text.  I would do it myself but I am badly out of touch with pop culture and would probably screw it up.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that someone should try to re-write it. The article also is not WP:NPOV. (e.g., "The firm continues in the tradition of Mr. Goodman and Mr. Chesnoff in always putting the client's needs first and willingness to go to court and uphold the solemnity of the attorney's oath.")  -shirulashem     (talk)   20:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in total agreement with both of you that this article has serious problems and needs cleanup to be written from a neutral point of view. I do think though that, on the basis of available sources, cleanup, and not deletion, is the appropriate course of action.  Cazort (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well rewriting, versus deleting is a big difference.    23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is attacking anything here. These deletion discussions happen here on Wikipedia all day long and in no way serve to attack or disparage anyone or anything. None of this is personal, and these constructive debates need to remain civil. Here's the bottom line. I have no connection to David Chesnoff. He might be a great lawyer. He might be a wonderful person. He might have represented dozens of famous clients. All of that is commendable, but none of it has anything to do with whether he meets the notability threshold that is necessary to have an article in Wikipedia. That's all I'm trying to say. I hope you don't take this debate as some kind of attack on you as the article creator, and certainly not as some kind of attack on David Chesnoff.   -shirulashem     (talk)   01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * how else is a trial lawyer to be notable except by trying cases for his clients? DGG (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As per WP:ANYBIO- Has he "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them"? Has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"?  -shirulashem     (talk)   12:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I appreciate the firm persistence of the editors of wikipedia, I have a degree in Journalism and media studies. I think I know a thing or two about citing sources, and determining the "notability" of a topic. I find it funny to even have this conversation.  I can say but one thing: "Res ipsa loquitur." I have seen wikipedia pages with much less credibility or in your words "notability."  I think everyone agrees.  If the purpose of wikipedia is to document "notable" American culture, I think those monitoring the website should allow contributors to be express their feeling of what "notable" is.  It is clear from the sources cited (bbc news, wsj, las vegas sun, charley rose, cnn,etc.) and the record of Mr. Chesnoff that the page is satisfactory, and the deletion suggestion must be removed. In the spirit of the law, here are some wikipedia guidelines for notability in people:

'''A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

This is an irrebuttable presumption of the notability. This is not temporary notibility as he has contributed significantly to the legal field for over 25 years

 Also there is verified evidence, as required

02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to "I have seen wikipedia pages with much less credibility ...", please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.   -shirulashem     (talk)   13:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not a valid rationale for saving the article. I was tempted to use such reasoning when I was newer to wikipedia...so I think it is important to be patient with new and inexperienced editors.  I think a stronger argument to keep (and this is more along the lines of my reasoning) is that past consensus at AfD's has been to keep articles with a much sparser level of coverage in reliable sources--and these still had a consensus of being considered notable.  Cazort (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: On balance I think -shirulashem  is correct. The notability of the subject is questionable on the grounds he/she has given. Setwisohi (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have a question. At what point does an article stop being threatened with deletion? While you guys are challenging my reasoning, I did not say because x then y.  What I did say, was that according to your notability guidelines, this article is sufficient.  While I understand that editors here have their own view, I think subjective views that are aimed at the responses of the page's creator are questionable in themselves.  Why would someone say " I don't like your reasoning, DELETE!  That is so capricious.  It is either notable or it isn't.  Here it clearly is, even others editors have said so.


 * As has already been mentioned, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There is no argument to be had on that basis. Setwisohi (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment.  My analysis is premised upon the underlying facts, as well the impact Mr. Chesnoff has had on the national legal community. I think the topic of this page has gone in a weird direction.  The person who marked it for deletion, has already conceded that it should just be rewritten, which it already has.  And it is being added to.  It is neutral and exhibits a fair point of view.  It is not disputed that he is a notable figure, and editors clearly agree.  Do you think all of the notable clients he has had over the years, chose him because they saw a billboard?  No, they knew of his successful record through news reports, tv and newpspaper interviews, lectures and other notable attorneys.    19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentextremely wordy comments seem to be making the "keep" side of this article look bad. I think this is extremely unfortunate as, while I don't agree with 90% of his reasoning, I think the topic is solidly notable.  I would urge editors to ignore and engage in the comments I made above, about the huge volume of sources...which I think have not been adequately addressed.  Cazort (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I apologize to all who may be offended by comments. It was not my intention, and I will refrain from addressing anyone further. Instead I will continue to work on a topic I am passionate about, the law. Thank you.  01:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I tend to be too wordy in my comments often too.  Also, I would recommend making sure you have a single (only one!) bolded recommendation, to make clear to the closing admin that you favor keeping this article.  Cazort (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * RECOMMENDATION: Strong Keep Dear Admin, I respectfully request that this page be kept. I, as well as others are editing the page in order to clean it up. I was not as well versed in some of the rules regarding the initial post, so please disregard some portions of my earlier posts.  I stand by the position, however, that this page is backed by substantial support from well respected sources.  The topics surrounding this page have been substantial, and internationally notable.  Mr. Chesnoff's legal career has been documented by numerous sources and outlets, and meets all requisite policies of Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by • Special:Contributions/contribs) 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep   Has a lot of notable clients, but that does not mean he is notable himself. However, the WSJ article  which is not a reader blog but editorial material, and specifically calls him notable,  is sufficient. The article will of course need some major revision.   DGG (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the last post: Established journalist Anna David also did a feature story on Chesnoff.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.128.199 (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * PLEASE READ: Also this is in response to the alleged Chesnoff as murder suspect comment before. He is the subject of the entire article. Please note, the article is in 1996, and the paper refers to him as a veteran.  Also, check this one out.  and this one.   06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a truly horrible article as it stands and editors could be forgiven the impulse to send it to the dross pile for that alone, but the individual does merit further inspection. Upon review of the adduced sources, however, I feel that this is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. I cannot see what he has done himself to pass our notability criteria. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Deletion, outside of things like copyright violations with legal issues, the role of quality of the article is irrelevant to the question of keeping or deleting--the question is whether it can be cleaned up. To address your question about NOTINHERITED--I want to point out that (1) NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline, and it has been disputed (in particular by me) due to what I have seen as its mis-use in arguments, in cases exactly like this one.  For example, in Articles for deletion/David J. Cynamon, it was argued that a lawyer is not notable if "the subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client".  I think this is an argument that is used in an attempt to override WP:N, to argue to delete material even when sufficient coverage exists in reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article on the topic.  And as a side note, I also want to point out that there is one article I showed above that stated that Chesnoff was a suspect in a murder case, and that article was written directly about him.  Cazort (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the last post: To classify the article as "horrible" when you do not use correct grammar yourself is truly ironic.  Nonetheless, as an attorney representing notable clients, the attorney takes on the client's persona so to speak.  Thus, the attorney "is" the client.  However, that is not why Mr. Chesnoff is notable.  He is notable because he has worked on, and resolved countless notable cases; cases, that he is a part of.  To just dismiss the article because the person he works with is notable, is ludicrous.  How else could we document notable American attorneys? Chesnoff did not inherit his notability as Eusebeus states.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  •  21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He is the subject of this one too! 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true, it's not the most detailed coverage, but I think it contributes to notability that someone wrote an article solely about the fact that he has joined the legal team in a particular case. It's that there are so many articles like that that does it for me.  Cazort (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Cleanup Per DGG. Subject appears to be more notable than your average lawyer, but the article needs some serious cleaning up. Avi (talk) 17:36, 7 July 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.