Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shayana D. Kadidal


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Shayana D. Kadidal

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

Subject fails notability. The article also fails wp:bio and appears to be a coatrack for Guantanamo Bay. The claim of notability is that the subject represents clients at Guantanamo Bay, but this alone does not provide notability, as notability is not inherited. The writings listed are limited to items concerning the subject's clients. A proper course would be to list this individual as counsel in the client's page for each detainee. Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  —Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No third-party sources in article except for a blog, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by his associate-level work on a handful of cases, a number of which aren't remotely notable. The WP:PUFF in the article is unbelievable: a lawyer filed a status report? and a motion for joinder?  Sign up 2000 litigators at Baker & McKenzie for Wikipedia articles. THF (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've agreed with the author of most of this category of articles, GeoSwan, to forego further AFD nominations in return for him reviewing these articles with a jaundiced eye and userfying the majority of them that do not meet BIO. Since that would resolve the problem with a minimum of other editors' time, I ask Yachtsman1 to also forego such additional nominations for 30 days or so, instead tagging with notability and primarysources tags. THF (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly satisfies Notability guideline for "significant" coverage, as interviewed or featured in more than a dozen international publications (NYT, Guardian, NPR, Al-Jazeera), writes columns for major publications, "senior managing attorney of the Guantánamo project" at the CCR. Guideline defines "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." He has received BOTH "Significant" AND "Exclusive" coverage from national and international press.  According to his bio, reffed in the article :" In addition to supervising the Guantánamo litigation, he also works on the Center’s case against the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program, CCR v. Bush, and its challenge to the “material support” statute, HLP v. Gonzales. Shane has testified before Congress on the material witness statute and is a contributor to the Center’s book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, 2006."   That previous remarks here state "associate-level work on a handful of cases, a number of which aren't remotely notable"  suggests that they have not actually looked at the sources.  T L Miles (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment He has been named as counsel in a number of articles, and added a few comments.  His notability comes from his clients, not from himself.  Again, simply being an attorney for someone famous does not make one famous.  See WP:NOTINHERITED.  THF is correct on this score.  On another matter, I will also hold off nominating these articles for 30 days as suggested.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: per the article, you might characterize his writing columns for publications such as The Guardian, or being interviewed in a number of papers on a number of different cases as "named as counsel in a number of articles, and added a few comments" but I believe that to be an inaccurate summation of the sources. I believe an unprejudiced look at the references now in the article demonstrates this. These show quite clearly that he is notable in and of himself, for his body work, not inherited from others. T L Miles (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Being interviewed regarding cases an attorney is involved in is par for the course.  If this imparted notability, half of the litigators in the United States would have their own wikipedia article.  The subjects of the article are the clients, not the attorney.  He merely acts as the voice of the client, his advocate, nothing else.  When looked at objectively, the links display that the "notability" of the subject is merely inherited from the clients he represents. He's not the story, his clients are.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:40, 15 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. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Having a notable client doesn't make someone notable. Something additional is required to make an individual notable.  For Kadidal why doesn't being picked by US security officials to be the target of warrantless wiretap make him notable?  Why doesn't taking a lead role in suing the US government for those wiretaps make him notable?  Various publications have chosen to seek out his comments on cases he is not a party to,  -- why doesn't this make him notable?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I started this AFD. 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. Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since you wrote "subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted." I feel compelled to ask you to actually read the references now attached to the article: your statement is most certainly is not "admitted" nor supported by those references. His notability comes from his work as a lawyer, which began (and gained write ups in the New York Times) before Guantanamo was opened, involves work as a spokesperson for an organisation which coordinates a broad defense of these and other clients, and organizes opposition to both Guantanamo and the broader political behavior of the United States government.  This includes, but is not limited to, being a spokesperson for a suit against the NSA, in which he himself is party, other suits not involving Guantanamo defendants (such as HLP v. Gonzales) interviews, speeches (I've seen him speak several times here in NYC), and authorship of articles, columns on two continents.    You write (correctly) "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."  But if you actually examine this specific article (as opposed to writing things about all these AFDs you're pushing collectively), you will see that this particular individual is notable far beyond merely defending a single notable client, and for things beyond all the Guantanamo clients.T L Miles (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - Yes, I read the references. It appears that the subject represeents people in cases.  If you ran my name, you would come up with a number of the same types of articles and volume, yet I do not pretend to be notable.  The statement was made by Sherurcij that you now "contest".  Bringing suit against the NSA does not really make one noteworthy, either, nor does acting as a "spokesperson" for the parties.  Acting as a lawyer does not confer notability, nor does giving speeches.  As it stands, the subject is not notable.  His clients are notable.  The article should be deleted as failing notability requirements.  The case materials in the form of filings should be included under each of his notable clients, not under tha name of the attorney who wrote them on behalf of that client.  --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:Your logic would mean that no lawyer could be notable for their work as a lawyer. As an historian, would I never be notable, since I too only write about others? If I were interviewed (with big photos mind you, as Shane was recently) in ABC Madrid and SudDeutche Zietung would I remain non-notable?  If I wrote editorials on my opinions on a wide variety of topics  in a number of publications over several years, on topics which I did not directly work, would that be "Inherited"? Inherited from what? Being famous?  T L Miles (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - It means an attorney must gain notability by something other than representing notable clients. In the cases you are presenting to me, you are providing examples of what lawyers do.  They write and advocate for the client's interests.  In effect, when writing or talking about his client, the attorney is merely a mouthpiece for that interest.  He "is" the client.  Do you understand?  There is no difference in speaking to the press about your client as speaking to the Court about your client.  As a historian, you do not share the interests of your clients, and your works are notable in and of themselves.  In the same manner, if an attorney writes a history of legal precedent in 18th century village live in a small hamlet located in Berkshire from review of manorial court records, he would gain the same notability as a historian who writes about various historical subjects.  I hope that clears this up.Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Except he's not "speaking to the press about his client": He's speaking to the press about Guantanamo in general, the Bush Administration's legal policies, the NSA's wiretapping policies, Immigration policy etc. He's also writing about these and topics as diverse as obscenity law, patent law, drug policy, plant resources of developing nations, etc...  He's quoted in academic publications, UN documents, in Law School syllabi as an expert on these fields: and was before working at the CCR or the detaining of the people at Guantanamo.  Very little of his work is actually filing motions for individual clients.  Thus by your own construction above, he is notable for his works in and of themselves. Look, some of this batch of lawyers that you're pushing to have deleted may not be notable: I really don't now cause I haven't looked at the references.  I would like to see some indication that this is not a mass AfD and that your arguments do not rest on "they're all lawyers for notable clients" and on the specifics of this individual.  T L Miles (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - In speaking about GTMO, he is speaking for the interests of his clients, and in speaking for the interests of his client, he is critical of GTMO. Why?  because his duty as an attorney is to get his client's out of GTMO, therefore his clients are vitcims of, as you put it, "Bush Administration policies".  Bringing a lawsuit hardly makes one notable.  Is a person notable for bringing a tort claim, for instance?    He has written an opinion for the Huffington Post (a blog) about his clients, for instance, hardly a shining example of journalistic integrity and vetting.  He has allegedly "contributed materials (not authored as asserted) for the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, 2006.  Yet this comes not from the work itself, but from a biography linked from the Huffington Post.  I also note that you have placed subjective importance to this individual's work.  I realize that you and many others may support inclusion of the subject because he is an attorney representing GTMO clients who may be notable, but I must state again that notability is not inherited.  Notability requires siginificant coverage, and I have yet to see any argument on this line either.  In conclusion, the subject is not notable according to Wikipedia's definitions.  Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being quoted in a few publication doesn't satisfy the "substantial coverage" required by WP:BIO. Googlenews picks up nothing besides for a six court documents. Small town lawyers can do better then that. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: and leaving out the middle initials (which he rarely uses), produces over ten pages of google news results. Please look at the article.  If what you wrote above were true, where did I find all the references?T L Miles (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:HEY and consistency with general unwritten Wikipedia consensus about the notability of pundits, but the article has a lot of wikipuffery that needs to be cleared out. Article should be moved to Shayana Kadidal after closure of AfD if kept.  THF (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep in agreement with THF. The article feels quite spammy and can definitely benefit from a sandblasting. But coverage in RS meets WP:PEOPLE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:50, 16 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.