Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Levander

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.

Andrew J. Levander

Andrew J. Levander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable attorney. Involvement in a great many fairly routine cases. I think our usual standard is either extensive press coverage for himself not primarily in connection with a case, or involvement in cases which are notable in the WP sense, or head of a state bar association, or the like. None of these are present. Awards like best lawyers in America are pure PR, just like this article. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG's well-thought-out nomination. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Just as a doctor with well known patients would not inherit notability, neither does this biography. One would think there would be more about activity of a notable U.S. Attorney, but no. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete DGG Thank you so much for nominating this! This page should go and Dechert should go as well if not be rewritten accordingly given what Wikiprofessionals has done. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a run of the mill corporate lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Gotta buck the trend here. You have to Google him first. Reuters identifies him in as a "prominent lawyer"[[1]] and "top white-collar defense lawyer Andrew Levander".[[2]] From the latter Reuters coverage "Levander, a partner at the law firm Dechert LLP, is one of the biggest names in the defense bar in the United States." His cases are by no means run of the mill. Tanaka's airbag suit was a whopper. Barclay's was huge. Former Governor Corzine's lawsuit made national news.[[3]] From that article in the Seattle Times, "Corzine has hired prominent defense attorney Andrew Levander of New York, according to a person familiar with the situation." Seattle knows he is prominent, across the country. There are also pieces in the NY Times calling him a leading white collar criminal defense lawyer.[[4]] I would like to see more personal profile info and less garbage sourcing in fawning law directories, but that's an editing job, not a delete. So it's a keep and fix. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft for stripping of puffery and possible development of sources. BD2412 T 05:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another Dechert lawyer. Most of the coverage is in passing mentions. Open statements, my client said, said his client, told the judge and so on. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. No real secondary sources. The Seatle Time link above, is hired prominent, another mention. scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I thought the sources I found and argument I made would be enough. Multiple national sources calling him notable. While it's very rare for people to change their votes, since they don't want to look like they only gave this a cursory glance, new delete votes surprise me. The original nom claims Levander's cases are non-notable, which is clearly not true. Is there some underlying subtext I'm missing? I see a reference to Wikiprofessionals above. To the closer - give me a day (it's Wednesday AM now) - I'm going to remove the poor sourcing and add better ones, and flesh out his bio as much as I can. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I tightened it up a bit, and removed some fluff. I still wish there were more in-depth profiles that I could include, but if you head up a big white collar defense firm that values client confidentiality, I'm guessing self-promotion is frowned on. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Issues discussed here, in nominations and in delete votes, seem to me to have been resolved by User:Timtempleton's edits. Msclguru (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. He was an Notes Editor of the Columbia Law Review, clerked for United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was an assistant Solicitor General, and was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Mother Court. He is chairperson of one of the largest law firms in the world. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That a newspaper calls someone prominent or notable when it mentions him is fluff, not judgement. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 18 August 2020 (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.