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. Ty 03:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C. Rufus Pennington III[edit]

Not-notable lawyer; there are hundreds of lawyers involved in the Guantanamo cases, and the references consist of trivial mentions. Brianyoumans (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Didn't Groucho Marx play this character in 'Duck Soup'? Nick mallory (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This person clearly isn't notable enough to have a article here. I did a google search on his name, and looked through the first 10 pages of the results. There was just about no reliable sources, and the reliable sources that I can think of didn't really provide biographical information. Also he hasn't taken part in any well known court cases, or represented anyone famous.--SJP (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, there are problems with the article, definitely (it doesn't name the captive, for example) - but I think cleanup is more in order than deletion. It's not a case of vanity press, and I see a bona fide newspaper or two in the references; as well as repeated mention by Universities and other venues where he is speaking. My bar of notability is essentially met by the fact "students who see that Pennington is going to be speaking at their convocation, or newspaper readers who see an article about his upcoming appearance, should be able to turn to WP to find out exactly who this guy is. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, I wish you were right Sherurcij:-) I don't like the idea of deleting something someone put time and effort into. Also, I believe wikipedia should cover a wide range of topics, and we aren't a paper encyclopedia, so that's possible, but I still believe articles need to have some notability. If the most notable thing you have done is speak in some UU church, or appear once in a college newspaper, then I don't consider you notable enough to have an article.--SJP (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep via WP:POTENTIAL. If someone expands the article and adds in more sources, it will be a suitable article --Numyht (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly believe we shouldn't look at the current state of the article, and base our conclusion off of that, but instead look at the potential an article has. I try to look at the potential of an article, this is an example of me doing that, but I see no potential in this one. I did a search on this guy, and have viewed 300 links thus far, and I have seen nothing that indicates notability so far.--SJP (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Delete - The only potential here is that the case he is on ultimately returns something significant from a legal standpoint. Maybe this case will. But any assumption on that would be serious crystal balling. There is no legal commentary that he has pursued anything in this case that dozens of other lawyers aren't also doing. They aren't all notable. A couple of the references are sort of useless. Any idiot can sign up for the Guantanamo Bay Bar Association. Any idiot with a law degree can volunteer his services to detainees. Doesn't really make him special. A single speech on the issue in a church? Big deal. Montco (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Wholeheartedly agree with everything said by Montco except for the "weak" preface. Not everyone involved with a notable project deserves a whole Wikipedia article to themselves. This person has fallen way short of the "significant coverage in reliable sources" required by wp:bio.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.

I question whether the number of other lawyers who volunteered should preclude covering Pennington. There are lots of categories of individuals with hundreds, or thousands of examples.

Montco is absolutely incorrect in his or her comment that "any idiot" can volunteer to serve to help a Guantanamo captive. The volunteers have to go through extensive security check -- this can take over a year. They have to sign an undertaking not to reveal any secrets they learn, to the public, or to their clients. And they have to post a substantial bond.

Regarding the concern over "significant coverage in reliable sources" -- why doesn't this reference satisfy that requirement? Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.