Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua L. Dratel


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Joshua L. Dratel

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

WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- and he never even actually got around to representing his ostensible Gitmo client, who pled guilty. Two primary sources, and one SMH source that doesn't even mention him by name. Article is redundant with David Hicks. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable lawyer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  —GRBerry 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Dratel is the author of two signicant books. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. He is the co-editor of two books of marginal notability where he compiles primary documents. THF (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The nomination asserts that Dratel "never got around to defending his client" -- sorry, but that is a highly inflammatory way of describing Dratel's role. The Commissions are new, untried, unprecedented, and according to the many accounts of insiders chaotically run.  The Prosecution has been repeatedly split by discord, with over half a dozen lawyers resigning over ethical concerns.  It is very misleading to claim he "never got around" to defending Hicks.  Dratel had flown to Guantanamo, time consuming, and expensive, for Hicks big day.  Before Hicks trial began the Presiding Officer introduced sudden procedural impediments to the lawyers Hicks had been working with for years participating in his trial.  Dratel described how he came to be barred.  "Never got around" is a very misleading description.  The nomination notes that Hicks plead guilty.  Yes, he pled guilty -- almost immediately after learning his Defense team had been shattered by the Presiding Officers sudden procedural impediments.  I suggest the circumstances under which Dratel was barred from participation are as remarkable as his actual participation would have been if the Commission had proceeded.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, and you just gave a very good reason to expand the Hicks article. But it doesn't make Dratel notable just because he took a plane flight and refused to sign paperwork. THF (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As is the case with most of these articles, he's not notable. WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.  Simply representing a detainee does not provide an attorney is "notable" enough to merit an entire article.  Scrap this article, and use some of the language to expand the Hicks article.  I think this is the right move.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every'' Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment --  The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, but from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion.  Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. In closing, I have seen no argument that makes the case the subject is in fact "notable" as required under Wikipedia's guidelines, notwithstanding the patently uncivil personal attack I see in the above-post.  Please refrain from doing so in the future.  Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:17, 15 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.