Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Baxter (lawyer)


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

George Baxter (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for a non-notable lawyer. Has a few passing mentions in news articles, that's it, no in-depth coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments. I've written earlier today that I can't assume good faith with for-profit autobiographies of non-notable people. This was written arguably when a person could still write their own page on Wikipedia and claim innocence. However, this is basically a hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. In fact, the lawsuit he won, and his extrajudicial comments, contributed to homophobia in the age of AIDS. The real problem is that, outside of that case, he hasn't really done anything notable. A Google search reveals nothing new about him as a person. Snyder was decided on charitable immunity, a statutory doctrine under New Jersey law (which has its uniquely odd features such as its convoluted liquor laws.) The Snyder decision was criticized by scholars. California declined to follow the Snyder case, but a New York trial court has followed it as precedent. The consensus nationwide appears to make plaintiffs a higher burden than Snyder, but Virginia and Louisiana have followed it. The Times article names him once. As a lawyer, he fails my standards for notability for lawyers. So the only question is how important was Snyder; it has generated scholarship including law reviews, if not further litigation. So Snyder is notable, IMHO, but the winning lawyer, perhaps not. Is a redirect and re-naming in order? Is his one big case, Snyder, so triumphant that he gets his own article? Is this a coat rack for him? Bearian (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2020 (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.