Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Oppenheim


 * 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. czar 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Matt Oppenheim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This attorney does not appear to meet notability requirements. The closest thing to claims of notability are that he was "part of the team that took the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. case to the Supreme Court" and was involved in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

A look at [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd. the Supreme Court opinion in the Grokster case] shows that he was not the lead attorney; the lead attorney was Donald B. Verrilli. Oppenheim was just one of the team of eighteen lawyers who contributed to the brief.

A look at the First Circuit opinion in the Tenenbaum case shows that he wasn't lead counsel in that case, either; that was Paul D. Clement. Again, Oppenheim was one of six lawyers on the brief. The Tenenbaum could be a reference to the district court portion of the case, rather than the appeal, which is much less notable, at least from a legal point of view (generally, district courts don't set precedents, especially where the court's finding is appealed, as here; opinions in appeals do), but if so, that's unsourced and difficult to verify, and in any event doesn't amount to notability anyway. (The text of the article suggests he may have had more involvement at the district court proceeding; but somewhat confusingly, the link is to the article on the appeal rather than to the article on the district court proceeding.)

The article has no references, as such. It does have two external links, though: Copyright Conundrum and. If considered references, these might save this from WP:BLPPROD; but both are dead links. TJRC (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per breath-takingly lengthy nom.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - the nom pretty much covered all the bases.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2017 (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.