- 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. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Steven Donziger
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Steven Donziger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of deleted article; contested CSD.
Really, what is there to say. The reasons in the previous AFD still hold true. The man has no notability outside of the Lago Agrio case, and the new article is a) still a puff piece and b) still largely concerns the Lago Agrio case, with a nice dash of POV pushing to boot.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_R._Donziger for the previous AFD; the new article was recreated with a slightly different title. Jtrainor ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jtrainor ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The reason given in the previous AfD, in 2018, was that "This lawyer did what lawyers do, represented a client...." As the new article reports (from The Guardian, clearly a RS), something has happened since that AfD: Donziger has been placed under house arrest. This is very far from a routine incident of "what lawyers do". Still less is it routine for 29 Nobel laureates to sign an open letter condemning the court's action in the case. These developments clearly make him notable. I agree that the current text has NPOV violations but those can be edited. Putting this much detail about Donziger personally into the Lago Agrio oil field article would be clutter there (and some editors would probably try to remove it from that article by pointing out that it was clutter). JamesMLane t c 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep Several new significant sources since last AFD two years ago: [1] [2] [3] [4] and several legal-specific sites. I generally support merges and this could be covered further there but his case in particular has moved beyond the original oil field case which is quite long. POV pushing was just added today by IP. Reywas92 Talk 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Retain article. This request has just progressed from speedy deletion to normal deletion: can someone explain why? An article on Steven Donziger should exist on Wikipedia and he clearly meets notability requirements. Steven Donziger was the subject of a recent article in The Guardian [1] that explains that his adverse judicial treatment has the support twenty-nine Nobel laureates who signed an open letter. How can that not be notable? And The Guardian article also counters the AFD claim that nothing substantial has happened since the previous unsuccessful AFD request. Indeed, if one looks at the edit log, the aforementioned article may well have triggered this AFD? -- RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Watts, Jonathan (18 April 2020). "Nobel laureates condemn 'judicial harassment' of environmental lawyer". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
- Strong Retain The 4/18/2020 front page Guardian article along with 29 member Nobel laureate's open letter define Donziger's relevance. The request to delete is repetitive, oddly coincident with the Guardian article and, contains no cogent fact based support for withdrawal based on wikipedia criteria.
- Keep Whether Donziger is a hero or a crook, and he may be both, the sources linked above are surely enough for WP:N. Moonraker ( talk) 01:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable subject with coverage in reliable secondary sources. Woerich (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep but maybe rename? What if the article was "Lago Agrio litigation" (per SCOTUS)? We could then merge that whole section which now dominates the Lago Agrio page. For the sake of argument, the article could just as easily be about Judge Lewis Kaplan - he ordered the house arrest, the petition mentions him, and his name even appears almost as many times as Donziger's in the current article text. Perhaps the overall story is more notable than this one man is. (PS: I'm the one who revived this page from a redirect in January. I didn't know about the previous deletion process and may not have bothered if I had. I probably have a sheepish ambivalence bias because of that.) Yardenac ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Obviously notable subject with coverage in reliable secondary sources. This AfD smells like an attempt to hide information from the public. Drono ( talk) 19:21, 24 April 2020 (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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Steven Donziger
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Steven Donziger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of deleted article; contested CSD.
Really, what is there to say. The reasons in the previous AFD still hold true. The man has no notability outside of the Lago Agrio case, and the new article is a) still a puff piece and b) still largely concerns the Lago Agrio case, with a nice dash of POV pushing to boot.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steven_R._Donziger for the previous AFD; the new article was recreated with a slightly different title. Jtrainor ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jtrainor ( talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The reason given in the previous AfD, in 2018, was that "This lawyer did what lawyers do, represented a client...." As the new article reports (from The Guardian, clearly a RS), something has happened since that AfD: Donziger has been placed under house arrest. This is very far from a routine incident of "what lawyers do". Still less is it routine for 29 Nobel laureates to sign an open letter condemning the court's action in the case. These developments clearly make him notable. I agree that the current text has NPOV violations but those can be edited. Putting this much detail about Donziger personally into the Lago Agrio oil field article would be clutter there (and some editors would probably try to remove it from that article by pointing out that it was clutter). JamesMLane t c 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep Several new significant sources since last AFD two years ago: [1] [2] [3] [4] and several legal-specific sites. I generally support merges and this could be covered further there but his case in particular has moved beyond the original oil field case which is quite long. POV pushing was just added today by IP. Reywas92 Talk 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Retain article. This request has just progressed from speedy deletion to normal deletion: can someone explain why? An article on Steven Donziger should exist on Wikipedia and he clearly meets notability requirements. Steven Donziger was the subject of a recent article in The Guardian [1] that explains that his adverse judicial treatment has the support twenty-nine Nobel laureates who signed an open letter. How can that not be notable? And The Guardian article also counters the AFD claim that nothing substantial has happened since the previous unsuccessful AFD request. Indeed, if one looks at the edit log, the aforementioned article may well have triggered this AFD? -- RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Watts, Jonathan (18 April 2020). "Nobel laureates condemn 'judicial harassment' of environmental lawyer". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
- Strong Retain The 4/18/2020 front page Guardian article along with 29 member Nobel laureate's open letter define Donziger's relevance. The request to delete is repetitive, oddly coincident with the Guardian article and, contains no cogent fact based support for withdrawal based on wikipedia criteria.
- Keep Whether Donziger is a hero or a crook, and he may be both, the sources linked above are surely enough for WP:N. Moonraker ( talk) 01:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable subject with coverage in reliable secondary sources. Woerich (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep but maybe rename? What if the article was "Lago Agrio litigation" (per SCOTUS)? We could then merge that whole section which now dominates the Lago Agrio page. For the sake of argument, the article could just as easily be about Judge Lewis Kaplan - he ordered the house arrest, the petition mentions him, and his name even appears almost as many times as Donziger's in the current article text. Perhaps the overall story is more notable than this one man is. (PS: I'm the one who revived this page from a redirect in January. I didn't know about the previous deletion process and may not have bothered if I had. I probably have a sheepish ambivalence bias because of that.) Yardenac ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Obviously notable subject with coverage in reliable secondary sources. This AfD smells like an attempt to hide information from the public. Drono ( talk) 19:21, 24 April 2020 (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.