Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Gorman


 * 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 no consensus. It seems as though there are enough sources, and Frommeyer is right, for the most part. I would like to see more in the article about what exactly makes him notable, and more developed refeerences. Grand master  ka  03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert J. Gorman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Has been listed as a speedy, but I didn't think it quite fitted into that. To be honest with you, I don't know enough about law or otherwise to be sure enough that he isn't notable to speedy delete, if you see what I mean. Also, its worth noting that this is one of many articles written about the same family by the same user. So, nominating for deletion but I can be convinced otherwise. Robdurbar 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep RJ is another matter than his son. RJ is a major civil rights attorney with a long reputation and participation in many historic events. The article is specifically given as a beginning, and should not be deleted unless it is clear that there will not be enough to prove N and V-- and we have at least 2 good ones here. His key cases have not yet been added, but they will--an indication of them can be seen in the obits cited., which are from reputable newspapers.  DGG 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The case he won was before the Illinois Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. (This and this are all I found about it.) The case may have had repercussions in Illinois but this is a weak case for notability and no other major legal accomplishments are cited. Being with Ike at D-Day or marching on Washington are interesting sidebars to an article but not in themselves notable. There's potential here but I don't see it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * will take some looking,then. we have a few days. I agree that it has to be the cases, unless something else should surface.DGG 06:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think DGG is 100% correct!  I've yet to finish RJ's article, because I'm still learning how to cite references and sources that can be vefified by any fact checker.  FYI - I am NOT an attorney, so I'm a little handicapped at citing legal references - but I'm in the process of learning.  There's several important civil rights cases (most on a pro-bono basis) that RJ was involved with that I'm till trying to cite and document that clearly illustrates his importance. Frommeyer 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your Help Please I fully understand the need for editors to check & verify facts.  I have a link to a PDF file of a six (6) page feature article about the Roy Eaton case (he spent 16 years in prison for a crime he did not commit) that was in the Saturday Evening Post in 1956.  Can I put a link to this article on the RJ page for you check?  Right now, I suspect that it would / could / might be more appropreate within it's own "People vs Roy Eaton" article?  Likewise, I suspect that the NBC's 1957 television documentary "Error in Judgement" requires its own seperate Wikipedia article that can be linked to from RJ's page?  Your help and guidance would be most appreciated. Frommeyer 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The person who wishes to include information in Wikipedia is responsible for backing up that information with reliable sources so that we can properly cite any assessments. If there are so many important civil rights cases in his career, then it should be an easy matter to find sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Thanks Dhartung and I agree 110%. Would editors and fact checkers find this 6 page PDF file useful 1956 Reprint about the Roy Eaton story and case? Like the one-hour 1957 NBC documentary Error in Judgment, I suspect are both from a "human interest perpestive" written for mass consumption by the general public.  Important Question - If you look at the 1956 copyright reprint permission at the very end of the PDF file, does this allow me to cite this file as a reference on the RJ page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frommeyer (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
 * In the strictest sense we shouldn't link to unauthorized reprints ("mirrors") of copyrighted works, but in practice it happens quite often. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about copyrights (but trying to learn).  It seems like the copyright notice at the end of the 6-page reprint allows for it's use by anyone EXCEPT for three specific conditions (none of which this use in Wiki seems to violate).  Any thoughts? Frommeyer 11:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * HELP - Citing Source Question. If I removed the link to the PDF and just cited the source (6-page story "The Case Of Prisoner No. 16688" by John Kobler, 1st published in the July 14, 1956 issue of Saturday Evening Post) would any Wiki editor or admin even bother to look it up "off line" since there seems to be no current reference to it anywhere on the internet that I could find? This is just info for my own education and future use in citing reference. Frommeyer 11:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Curiosity Question. I'm not going to delete it, but can any of you tell who recently added the "i am gay" at the very beginningof the article?  Again, I'm brand new at making entries to Wikipedia (started 4 days ago).  Does this type of thing happen offen?  The exact same entry was made on another article that I created. Who cleans this garbage up?    General Question  Is the original author of a Wikipedia article charged with the responsibility of monitoring the article once it is finally approved?  Just real curious. Frommeyer 15:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see 'i am gay' on the article anywhere? Yeah, vandalsim of articles does happen. No, its not really anyone's responsibility to attend to an article, its the community's role as a whole. --Robdurbar 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's neither on this article nor on the Robert C. Gorman article, Frommeyer. There's nothing in the history of either article to indicate that such vandalism occurred. Color us confused. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete I did a lot of cleanup on this article, which came to my attention due to copyvios in the original version. I was going to argue for a keep based on argument before the US Supreme Court.  Now that I see the case was before the Illinois Supreme Court, I just took a look at the Chicago papers from 1956 and found out that Eaton was not released because of an appellate court decision.  In actuality, the prosecuting attorney obtained a confession from one of the real criminals and then petitioned the trial court to have Eaton released.  Gorman was involved, but it appears that the person primarily responsible for Eaton's release was the prosecutor.  I feel even more strongly now that Gorman lacks sufficient notability.  Perhaps the case of People v. Eaton is notable, having been the subject of a TV documentary, and it might be appropriate to include some detail of Gorman's biography there as Eaton's attorney, but I don't think a standalone article on Gorman is appropriate based on the lack of notability in his own right. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) and revised by Butseriouslyfolks 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even worse, for the article's sake that is, the SEP article indicates that the case itself was not argued before the Illinois Supreme Court (although the compensation case, that led to the new state law, may have been).--Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to a Chicago Daily Tribune article from 1960, Eaton received $48,000.00 through legislative enactment in 1957, paid $16,000.00 of it to Gorman (so much for the pro bono stories) and had spent the balance by 1960, when he was arrested for drunkenness and jailed because he didn't have the $23.00 in fines and court costs. Sad. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but probably inevitable. To clarify from what I understand, Gorman was asked to be an amicus curiae by the state judge in the case, in an era before Miranda and widespread public defenders, somewhat unusual. He then pursued a civil suit on Eaton's behalf which is where the settlement came from. In any event, I wish this were a bit more notable, because it is interesting.--Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:N is not established. Accomplishment is not notability. I withheld judgement on this article because I thought it had a chance, but it hasn't really come together. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTABLE I do not wish to waste anyone's time, including my own. Unfortunately, this RJC is my very first entry for any topic in Wikipedia - and I'm still going thru a big learning curve. However, it clearly seems to be that Roy Eaton story and RJC's involment certainly meets the "primary criterion" for inclusion in Wiki, if nothing else. If a 6-page story in the Saturday Evening Post and a 1-hour NBC television documentary on the Armstrong Circle Theatre series (aired from 13 years, 1950 to 1963) aren't reliable secondary sources about this topic, then I am wrong. Perhaps I just don't understand the "rules of the road" as defined by Wikipedia itself (see below): Frommeyer 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. These guidelines ensure that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about each topic.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent. The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely demonstrate the notability criteria.

FYI - Robdurbar Left Wiki. If you look at his/her page, it appears that Robdurbar, who was an Administrator, has left the Wiki community on March 3rd. What happens now with this article. AND, what happens with my The Appraisal Foundation article which I totally re-wrote and referenced to the best of my ability. Will another Admin step in and take over automatically, or must someone in Wiki be notified? I'm just curious as to how this process works. Frommeyer 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is we have to be careful not to confound topics. Just because a person is involved in something notable does not make the person notable in his or her own right.  The SEP article and TV special are about Roy Eaton's situation, with only passing mentions of Gorman because of his connection to Eaton.  I think that Eaton is notable (and interesting, btw) and may merit a Wikipedia article.  That does not mean that Eaton's attorney should have a self-standing article. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply That's true, but it seems that Gorman has has more than his 10 year involement (1946-1956) with Eaton before he was released from prison in 1956. Afterward, he won (as a seperate notable case) the 1st payment for a wrongful conviction case in Illinois in 1957.  Then, during the 60s and 70s, I think his 95% success record in defending 19 of 20 conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War is notable.  That's three seperate notable items that have been referenced so far. Frommeyer 15:03, 5 March 2007 (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.