Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Murphy (JAG)


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) D ARTH P ANDA duel 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Murphy (JAG)

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

Non-notable lawyer. Only reference provided is a memo from Alberto Mora on Guantanamo Bay interrogations which merely confirms that he spoke to Murphy and that he was the commandant's attorney. No notability of the person is in any way indicated. Fails WP:BIO because an attorney for a (possibly) notable person does not inherit the notability (WP:ITSA)  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have added four new secondary sources indicating his notability as Senior Ethics Commander for the Marine Corps as he discussed prisoner abuse in the War on Terror, and gave interviews immediately following 9/11 when he was hailed as a mini-hero for escaping the Pentagon despite being in the office right next to the impact area. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Nominator characterizes Murphy as "an attorney for a (possibly) notable person". Murphy was an active participant in the early discussion opposing the use of torture, pushed by President Bush's civilian political appointees -- one of the most significant issues discussed during the Bush administration. Geo Swan (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw I would like to withdraw my nomination at this stage. While I do not find the additional refs especially convincing (press releases from his new employers are not neutral, most of the others are about him being injured in the Pentagon attack which is not in itself notable IMO) and would like to have seen, for instance, a newspaper article on the importance of the documents he wrote, I wish to assume good faith and withdraw; especially as I cannot read the Washington Post article without going through paywall.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  09:45, 4 January 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.