Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Reiff

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Reiff

Article on a lawyer. Sole claim for notability that I can see is that he is "on both the board of directors and the executive committee of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association". I do not know one way or another if that makes him notable, and so I bring the article to this forum to decide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should be speedied -- creator removed speedy tag, so I have retagged per A7. Not notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy. There are perhaps a hundred or more lawyers listed as 2006-2007 members of the Board of Directors at the NYSTLA website [1] (no data given for 2008+). He is not listed as an officer [2], so I'm not sure that belonging to this board is itself notable. His claim to notability appears to be a tort personal injury lawsuit that was mentioned in the media in 2006. regards, --guyzero | talk 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an addition to Guyzero's comment, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of lawyers admitted to state supreme courts as well as SCOTUS, that in and of itself does not establish notability. Certainly having litigated a case for $200,000 about an umbrella that injured a woman does not, either. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is true that thousands of lawyers are members of these organizations and the size of a particular lawsuit is and of itself not notable, the umbrella case did receive national coverage. This coverage was due to the unusual nature of the lawsuit as well as the fact the a beach umbrella was used on the court house steps. I am the original author of the text and may have made some mistakes in first editing the entry but I believe that the entry is notable §Jameskrouse 29 January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. Original contributors explanation makes me think we should consider an article on the case (okay, no, not really) but certainly not on the lawyer associated with the case. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The umbrella case did receive national coverage. - Ret.Prof (talk)
The umbrella case received substantial coverage, but I think this might be better addressed in an article about the case, rather than Mr. Reiff. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, it's true, the umbrella case DID receive national coverage. However, Reiff did not. He was not the focal point of the coverage, and most of the articles about the incident were largely trivial. I don't think that the given sources denote significance or notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage of him is entirely incidental, and there is nothing notable there. I removed the speedy tag, because it is seems worth discussing, as we are doing, and I think we will do better to come to a more definitive decision here. It would be possible to argue that 2RS should be taken literally without exception, and this discussion serves the useful purpose of demonstrating that the consensus is otherwise. DGG (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original contributor here again - interesting debate, but the umbrella case cited in WSJ and NYT substantially cited the lawyers use of the umbrella on the court house steps plus him citing laws from the 1800s to make the case. His actions are what made the news in those cases. A simple google search on his name reveals valid news sources and the very fact that we are suggesting adding the case would indicate that he should be included. --Jameskrouse (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the lawsuit may be notable does mean that the participants automatically get articles. Please see WP:ONEEVENT. thanks, --guyzero | talk 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This case would not have received national coverage from the WSJ and the NY Times if it weren't for the circumstances of the case and the antics of the attorney. Both umbrella case and the lawyer are intertwined. - --PinDesign (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock: PinDesign (talk · contribs) --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A simple Google search would prove that wrong.--PinDesign (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT --Numyht (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[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.