Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Ammori


 * 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   keep. Keeper |  76  00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Marvin Ammori

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

individual lacks sufficient notability, particularly on criteria of: (1) lack of significant coverage and (2) significant coverage independent of subject or subject's own sources (own articles, blogs, etc), with an overall concern of (3) academic / professional self-promotion by either individual or those associated with him


 *  Strong Delete. I think this page is probably a self-promotional bio created by the subject of the article. The article is rife with exaggerated assertions as to the subject's notoriety that is unsupported by sources independent of the subject, and many of the third party sources do not support the propositions set out in the article. For example, there is not a single source (independent from the subject's own blogs or self-created articles) supporting the suggestion that the subject "first proposed" the SOPA Blackout. In fact if you simply read the Wiki entry for the blackout, the idea has several other sources (Reddit or the CDT in 2011) and none of them is the subject. Nor is there any independent evidence of the subject's notoriety or recognition for "net neutrality", "copyright", or "Google's anti-trust investigation", among academics, lawyers, or other experts, more generally. Any search results returned are overwhelmingly sources that originated with the subject, with few, if any, independent sources covering the subject beyond superficial mention in passing (the Fast Company article, a badly sourced puff piece, being the exception). It thus fails WP:BIO and WP:Notability. Indeed, simply because someone has either(1) attended law school; and/or (2) argued a legal case; and/or (3) taught at a law school; and/or (4) written (often self-promotional) publications; and or (5) blogged at some point, does not make them notable or noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia entry. Editing history supports concern, as most edits to article have been completed by Wiki editors that have "made few or no other edits" other than editing this article (or edits to other article also promoting the subject). See, for example,, , and . Finally, article was previously proposed for deletion by another user. Striking13 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but cut down the self-promotional parts. Subject only has GS h-index of 6 and so fails WP:PROF, but passes under WP:PROF ("Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."), since he is frequently interviewed and provides information to mainstream press sources regarding cyberlaw, including the Washington Post, the Mercury News , and was profiled on the first page by the Philadelphia Inquirer . Ray  Talk 18:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete . Self promotion of an individual that doesn't appear to be noteworthy.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- per Ray's argument of a rare case of satistfying PROF#C7 without passing WP:PROF#C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete . Basically, for the reasons already stated, that this is clearly a self-promotional entry. Also, I cannot agree that this entry passes under WP:PROF while so utterly failing WP:PROF. Let's return to the criteria in WP:PROF: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Can we really truly say that a person who is cited in *literally* a handful of stories meets the criteria of "substantial impact outside academia"? I think not. Also, it should be pointed out, that the articles cited by Ray were very old-- the WaPO story is 2010, and Mercury News piece is 2008, and the PhilInq story is 2009. Thus, the subject fails the "frequently quoted" requirement. This isn't a case of an academic working in a "local media" environment. The subject claims expertise in national/federal regulatory policy. IMHO, this article fails WP:PROF, WP:PROF, and thus WP:BIO and WP:Notability  -- Category Mistake (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep — notable person, but edit promotional parts. I think the annoying promotional language has clouded some judgment about the subject’s profile. Subject does likely fail WP:PROF, but Subject is a very well-known person who clearly meets WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. Many of the arguments for “delete” are mistaken. User Category Mistake is mistaken that the subject is quoted in “*literally* a handful of stories.” Subject’s academic CV from 2011 is online and shows (pages 9-12) what looks like 70-100 citations and media appearances as an expert before 2011 (over a dozen in the Washington Post alone, others in the NYT and WSJ). A Google News search today, March 15, 2013, shows several entries (including Der Spiegel and TechPresident, as well as an article by Subject in Slate). Some quick searches reveal far more than a handful of articles even in 2012 and 2013, after the CV. Striking13 disputes that the subject “’first proposed’ the SOPA Blackout.”  This is a mistaken concern because that is not what the article says. The article says he first proposed a holiday/activism event one year later (whether or not that event itself is noteworthy). That he was deeply involved in the SOPA Blackout is clear from the Fast Company profile. (It is unclear why Striking13 is so sure that profile was “badly sourced.”) There are other indications he was deeply involved in fighting SOPA, including a USA Today story on the day of the blackout. Striking13 also says: “Nor is there any independent evidence of the subject's notoriety or recognition for ‘net neutrality’, ‘copyright’, or ‘Google's anti-trust investigation’, among academics, lawyers, or other experts, more generally” Net neutrality. The Subject is recognized for net neutrality, if any practicing lawyer in America is. The most important (perhaps only) major network neutrality case in the US is this case. This profile confirms that he handled the case. The person who handled Citizens United is recognized in campaign finance law. This point is perhaps Subject’s strongest. Copyright. Sopa involved copyright. Google anti-trust; this one required some searching. This article in Forbes (written by another academic) mentions the hiring of “big brand-name paid influencers for Google: Robert Bork (recently deceased), Eugene Volokh, Marvin Ammori.” Thus, the article, a post-mortem of the case, suggests that the Subject is a “brand-name,” and worth mentioning for the case. Subject is also mentioned in this article about how Google beat the feds.” Quotes on the Subject’s book, from prominent academics and Internet activists, are not drafted by the Subject and help corroborate the other sources above, though they are fairly general. Yes, the article appears promotional, but the Subject clearly meets WP:PROF. Edit not delete.Lau liz van (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons cited by Ray and Lau. Subject definitely meets WP:PROF. Agree that the article is currently too promotional, but can easily be fixed. — 173.79.69.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:40, 17 March 2013‎ (UTC).


 * Delete and/or Merge Responding to unsigned comment by Lau liz van - the USA Today story does not provide evidence the subject "was deeply involved in fighting SOPA". Rather, the story merely quotes the subject. The quotes suggest that the subject was opposed to SOPA, but offers no additional evidence that the subject was any more important to the SOPA blackout, or fighting SOPA, than any of the million other Americans who went on record to oppose the legislation via petitions or members of Congress. The subject taking credit for stopping SOPA is an insult to the real movers in opposition to the legislation, like the late http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz. There is no independent evidence beyond a few quotes, to suggest the subject was "important" in stopping SOPA; thus there is also no evidence of any special "copyright" expertise. In fact, a Google scholar search shows *two* articles written by the subject on copyright. This makes one an expert that is "known" (as per the article) on matters of copyright? Again, also see no evidence provided as for the subject's expertise on Google anti-trust matters. Again, being merely "hired" to work on a case does not suggest "brand" or notability, otherwise every lawyer in American, who has been cited in media for litigating a case, gets a Wikipedia entry. Delete and merge with "network neutrality" article, with the latter article noting the subject's role as counsel in the FCC v Comcast case. Done. --- Category Mistake(talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ray and MSC! – SJ + 03:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I just edited the article for promotional language. Article never gave subject credit for stopping SOPA, merely noted his involvement. Subject sits on the board of Aaron Swartz's organization, Demand Progress, so don't agree that citing his involvement in SOPA is an insult to Swartz or others who were active on SOPA. Also disagree with Category Mistake's notion that subject was no more important in the discussion than "any of the million other Americans" who opposed the legislation. Why the USA Today quotes and Fast Company story if his involvement was insignificant?Lau liz van (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not a bad editing job. I might make a few modest edits, but generally, you did a good job whittling down the promotional language and content. Subject has certainly made some contributions, but the earlier version of the article was over the top -- Category Mistake (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (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.