Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Strachman


 * 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 Close discussion since nominator, who I verified off-wiki does represent the subject, wants article deleted for security/safety reasons and not for notability reasons; redirected nominator to WP:OTRS, "List of volunteer response team leaders (OTRS administrators)". Churn and change (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

David J. Strachman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of article doesn't want article to exist Randomname1234 (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment You sure about that? If I'm not wrong, we do have circumstances in which we delete articles upon request of the subject (but I think its quite rare; Imagine if obama were to ask us to remove his page... Would we?) Even then, you would need more than just a simple "Subject of article doesn't want article to exist" to warrant a delete. I'm guessing you need to show us an official email or letter about the subject wanting this article deleted, cos anyone can say anything. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a tad suspicious, looking at your very recent contributions, in which the first and only thing you did was to nom a page for deletion. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Searching for David J. Strachman on Google News yields a far share of news, just enough to pass the requirements of WP:GNG & WP:N, so yeah, unless you can show us some nice official request from the subject, instead of just one dubious sentence, I'm going with Speedy Keep. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears notable on its face.  No appropriate reason given for deletion; the subject's opinion is no more weighted than anyone else's. TJRC (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book the subject wrote is notable. It is stocked by the Yale Law library and Stanford Law library (Crown library). I saw one review here. Those libraries stock only notable books, and also note the book has gone into a second edition. There is also scattered coverage in the NY Times, Washington Post, another Washington Post article, in a book, and as a contributor to New Jurist. Enough coverage in independent, reliable, third-party sources to pass WP:GNG. If the subject wants the article gone, he should contact OTRS; we have no way of verifying how genuine nom's claim is, nor whether we are legally required to delete the article for whatever reason (policy, per se, doesn't ask us to). Churn and change (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I agree with the "Keep"; but I disagree with the premise that the Yale and Standford law libraries stock only notable books, and that anyone who wrote a book carried by one of those libraries is inherently notable based upon that fact. Yale and Stanford have exceptional libraries, with thousands and thousands of books.  Not every one of those books' authors is notable because their book is in the library. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All libraries have vetting standards. Here, for example, is the one from University of Michigan Law library. Quoting from there: "Our objective is to buy only those items that are at or above a certain level of quality. We may ask for faculty assistance in gauging quality, or use reviews. Factors that are considered in an assessment of quality include how well a work is written, the scope of the work, the importance of the contents of the work to scholarly research or discourse, the nature and extent of footnoting within the work, accessibility of the work (e.g., indexing), the reputation of the author and/or publisher, and the importance of the work in the area of law or jurisdiction in question." Being present in these libraries indicates the work meets a quality, and indirectly notability, threshold. Also, the work being in its second edition matters; publishers don't go for second editions unless the first one has had significant influence in the field. I guess this is a sidebar to the Afd discussion, but since that seems pretty much settled, might as well discuss this :-) Churn and change (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "notability" can be substituted for "quality" as facilely as you suggest. The implication of such a position is that every one of the thousands of books in these libraries ought to have Wikipedia articles; that a book -- and a book's author, in the current discussion -- is inherently notable by having been purchased by certain libraries. I just can't agree with that. TJRC (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree one can't say that proves notability per WP guidelines, but it does prove notability in a looser fashion. I guess the main point is more often than not, if these libraries stock an academic book, or if an academic book has gone into a second edition, there would be reviews of that book somewhere. Major university libraries don't carry academic books academia has formally ignored. That means if we search hard enough, we will find reviews, which is the WP criterion of notability, rightly so since to actually write an article we need somebody to talk about the book first. I am not searching hard enough since this entire Afd seems a joke somebody should end soon. Churn and change (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Certainly notable per WP:RS.  It doesn't really matter if he wants the article to exist or not.  If he thinks he's being besmirched in some way, he can take it to WP:BLPN. Qworty (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

David Strachman has no problem with the information in this article, it all appears to be correct. Let's say that I could get an official letter, signed by David Strachman, explicitly stating that he does not want this page to exist. Would that change this conversation? Who would I have to show it to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomname1234 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can send an email to one of the OTRS administrators listed at WP:OTRS. If they decide to delete, they will do it directly; in this Afd conversation we are required to ignore such requests since we cannot verify the requests or the legal backing for them. Churn and change (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The short answer, Randomname1234, is no. In the case of a clearly notable person, that verification wouldn't matter, though it might make some difference in an AfD for a person of marginal notability.  (And no, I can't imagine anyone deleting directly on an OTRS request unless there were immediate libel/slander or copyright concerns.  It would still have to go through AfD.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, OTRS can delete directly if, say, a judge has asked WMF to delete the article (legal backing). I emailed Strachman directly; it was indeed he who requested the delete. I had much rather not mention the reason, but it is not a trivial one (not something like this isn't promotional enough; the well-sourced negative stuff is libel and so on). Whether the reason is valid enough to delete is something OTRS and WMF are best suited to judge. From a content perspective I have already voted keep, and that is clearly the consensus here. But since the issue is not about content, I guess this discussion is rather pointless. Churn and change (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep No valid deletion reason offered. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher, you said "Let us reason together." Well, here goes. Churn and Change has written earlier in this discussion that he has contacted David Strachman by email. This is true, I have read the email. Churn and change said about Strachman's reason for wanting this article to be deleted, "I had much rather not mention the reason, but it is not a trivial one." Strachman has no desire to keep this reason hidden--he wants the article deleted for his "security and safety." Churn and change can verify this information. Suing terrorists can be risky business, so obviously, the less personal information easily available the better (the article even includes the city he lives in). With this in mind, David Strachman is currently drafting a formal letter stating his intent. I sincerely hope that, after knowing his reasons and seeing his authorization, you will all agree that there is good reason to delete this post. I hope you can all be understanding about this. Randomname1234
 * Random, one quick point: mine is the last post on the issue so far; philosopher's post was before mine (you need to look at the timestamps, not the position of the posting). Yes, I confirm Strachman mentioned "security and safety" as the reason. I have pointed out he needs to email one of the OTRS members on who to contact and how to go about this. This particular discussion is not fruitful because, we, as editors, have no say on such a thing. The people who will decide will not look at the consensus here either, since this consensus is on a different issue (is Strachman notable enough for an article on Wikipedia). That is what the Afd tag you posted effectively asks us to discuss by its very nature. So I am, against the convention, going to close the discussion here. You need to contact the people listed at WP:OTRS and they will direct you to the right people. Churn and change (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2012 (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.