Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward B. Kramer


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Edward B. Kramer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fraudulent spam for non notable individual bombarded with dud references, primary sources, quotes from him and faked verification. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep.  I see nothing wrong with this article.  Kerm1120 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Competence is required. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Just because its self-promoting doesn't qualify it for deletion. It means you should remove the language inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - he appears to meet my standards for notable lawyers. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bearian. Keeping in mind your standards stated need for verification, which part of your essay do you contend is satisfied? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my essay is satisfied insomuch as meeting these four factors: 1, law review editor and author; 2, argued a precedental case, Watterson v. Mallard Bay; 3, called by media to comment on issues for which he is an expert; 4, member of the bar of SCOTUS. Verification: 1, named author at link for law review article; 2, named in case header (as "Ed Kramer"); 3, at least 2 Business Review articles (again, as "Ed Kramer"); 4, SCOTUS keeps the names of all counsel, e.g., here. So he clearly passes my standards. Whether these, however, violate the rule against using primary sources is an altogether different question; the article might have to be deleted for want of secondary sources, and I leave that issue to the closing sysop. I hope that answers your question. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. your essay says "a leading editor", not an author. Kramer is not an editor. If you are expanding to all authors then this essay becomes ridiculously broad (and IMO is already too broad). 2. your essay says nothing about precedence. To include every lawyer who participated in a case considered " Precedential" is ridiculously broad. (and did he argue it). 3. Called on by the media is not mentioned in your standard. 4. your standards state under non-notability "Admission to the Supreme Court of the United States is not notable enough." On the verification 1. Author only, not editor. 2. Huh? really? 3. What 2 "Business Review articles". Commenting to the media does not make you an expert. So no, it does not answer my question. It does however raise another. Why are you dropping your standards to try keep this disgusting piece of fraudulant promotion? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that he wasn't an editor on law review, and I don't see that I'm lowering my standards. In any case, I don't know the guy and I won't insist on keeping this page. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Missing in the citations and doesn't seem notable from what I located online. --  Dane talk  05:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I tried cleaning this article up, finding out what info was cited sources, and what other information was out there. There are NYT articles for a person of that name, but he was made senior VP of Dime Savings Bank - and there's no mention of a banking career history in this article.
 * It seems like the claim-to-fame is a case that went before the Court of Appeal in Louisiana, that he's a real estate developer, and had been quoted several times about his opinion of the housing market. He is on the board of the Baton Rouge Growth Coalition, so that's good. But, I am not seeing anything close to "significant" coverage, and when he's covered, it's generally a few sentence quote. I also don't see attainment of a very notable event in his career. So, all that said, it seems that there the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N guidelines.
 * , Regarding SCOTUS, are we sure it's the same Ed Kramer? Because the article said that the case brought before the Supreme Court was Watterson v. Mallard Bay, but the writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court was turned down - that case wasn't heard by the state or federal Supreme Court as far as I can tell. With the bloating in this article, if it was the same Ed Kramer on the No. 10–708, First American Financial Corp., Successor in Interest to First American Corp, surely it would have been in the article.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Ed Kramer that tried the case before the Supreme Court was an attorney at the Fair Housing Law Clinic at Cleveland Marshall College of Law. There is a picture of him there in 2011 - he would have had to have changed a lot since the 2006 photo in this article.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is for this case. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2016 (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.