Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Colangelo-Bryan


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Colangelo-Bryan

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

Law firm associate: notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All secondary sources are about his case, not about him. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:40, 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 8 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) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the subject is not notable. Notability is not inherited.  The person the attorney represents may be notable, but it is a stretch to say this makes the attorney notable as well.  As it stands, article appears to be WP:COATRACK.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sign of anything other than incidental coverage of the subject. Ray  Talk 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's hard not to assume bad-faith when a core group of friends all decide they want to delete a set of all related biographies -- first all Guantanamo detainees, and failing that, they've turned to all lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees. In this case, as in Snyder, it's a poor choice since defending multiple terrorists before military tribunal proceedings and their build-up is clearly enough to establish notability -- same as we have Third Reich and Nuremburg legal clerks listed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone created an article about a law-firm associate who had a minor role in one of the minor Nuremberg trials, and that attorney didn't go on to establish notability otherwise, you darn well bet I'd AFD them. Try to create an article for Maurice C. Myers or Raymond J. McMahon, Jr., and see what happens.  There isn't even an article for Friedrich Bergold--and Bergold was actually a lead defense counsel in the Milch Trial.  (Actually, do take a look at Milch Trial--it's filled with red-links and unlinked attorneys.)  Please WP:AGF, which is easier to do when the policy argument for keeping or deleting goes beyond WP:BECAUSEISAYSO. THF (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - One must assume good faith, Sherucij. It would be better to avoid personal attacks in these discussions, and stick to making points regarding why the subject passes notability.  My response is your point actually works against you.  The events themselves are notable, not the attorneys involved because they participated in the event.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that we're comparing GB to the Nuremberg Trials, which one of the Category:Nuremberg Trial attorneys (I'm not even going to bother clicking "Show preview" because I'm sure I'm not creating a redlink) do you think is unnotable?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of a single biographical source about this person (and I looked). WP:BLP1E applies.  His color quote about the reasons for suicide probably shouldn't be included in Guantanamo suicide attempts, represents the normal advocacy of a lawyer for their client rather than an independent viewpoint, so I don't see anything to merge.  With nothing to merge, deletion is the right outcome.  GRBerry 21:34, 10 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.