Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Backer

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Backer

Dan Backer (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)

The article about Dan Backer should be removed I believe because the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. I cannot complete the process myself but have done step one and am posting here as per instructions so others can complete the process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GongSnack (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Transcribed to this page by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does Mr. Backer not meet Wikipedia's notability standards? He's clearly a public figure who is often cited in news articles, writes opinion editorials, etc. Please explain... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC) DoctorStrange617[reply]

First off, you are Mr. Backer. This is obvious from your edit history. Wikipedia's notability standards say people notable for a single event shouldn't have their own page, but should be mentioned on the page for that event. You're also generally not supposed to edit your own page, or pretend you aren't yourself on the talk page. GongSnack (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not conferred by writing editorials, or by giving soundbite to the media in coverage of other things — notability is conferred by being the subject of media coverage, not the author of or a commenter in coverage about other things. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user who requested deletion just made his profile today, so it seems like he did so primarily to delete Mr. Backer's page. Appears to be malicious. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Doctorstrange617[reply]

• Keep Various Google searches show that this person has been a prominent conservative activist attorney for years, who is now firmly in the pro-Trump camp. There is plenty of room in this encyclopedia of 5.6 million articles for a biography of this attorney. Of course the biography can be improved, but that is the Wikipedia ethos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the media either is written by him, is about a single court case, or only briefly mentions him while discussing organizations he is involved with. Google searches are not a great indication of notability. In this case it's very easy to hire brandyourself.com to point everyone toward desired sources. Primary sources and some which only briefly mention the subject. GongSnack (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you can throw around baseless accusations all you want, but it doesn't make him any less notable. I don't know Mr. Backer, but he's certainly a relevant figure in American politics and campaign finance law. By the looks of it, not only was he integral to a Supreme Court case, but he seems to be regularly involved with the Federal Election Commission re: Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Seems to be a leading Republican legal expert. If hundreds of Google Search results don't make someone notable (much of it stemming from objective news reporting), I'm not really sure what does. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only source that seems to pass
  WP:GNG, article still feels promotional and should be tagged for cleanup. SportingFlyer talk 20:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And why not the Bloomberg story or the New York Magazine story or the BuzzFeed story or the Politico story? I agree that some of the opinion editorials are unnecessary and should be scaled back, but these are major news outlets! Pretending otherwise seems awfully selective, given his political views. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Doctorstrange617 (talk)[reply]

To respond to Doctorstrange617's suggestion that I made this account with malicious intent, I'll state for the record that I'm an IP editor, on a host with dynamic IPs (not my choice), so I had to make an account to have a consistent identity for this. My choice not to use an account is neither disallowed nor unpopular on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Why not create an account?. I haven't made an acct in many years, and only once before, and lost the password long ago.

Anyway, it's obvious from edits that Doctorstrange617 is either Mr. Backer or a meatpuppet. GongSnack (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. Nothing shows that Backer is anything other than a low level lawyer and PAC operator. The fact that he heads a PAC does not indicate that the PAC is significant or influencial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Again, he's clearly a public figure, and a politically influential one at that. I'm not a lawyer, but he's been profiled by a bunch of news outlets for winning a Supreme Court case ^[1][2][3]. So to discredit him as a "low level lawyer" seems unfair, given how many Wikipedia pages there are for lawyers out there. As User:Cullen328 mentioned, there is plenty of room for this page. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we Redirect to Great America PAC. This article certainly has promotional bits in it, but at the same time there does appear to be relevant information that could be inserted into the above mentioned article.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Committee to Defend the President. He hasn't established notability on his own, but his founding role in this PAC makes a redirect to this article the most appropriate resolution. Newslinger (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: does not meet
  WP:ANYBIO; promo 'cruft. The role in either PAC is not significant, so I don't see a point in redirecting the name to another article. In general, I'm not a fan of redirecting nn BLP names to orgs / groups. They may part ways; change their affiliation, while the redirect would linger. Best deleted in such cases. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Again, I really don't see why Mr. Backer's page is going through such added scrutiny. There are countless lawyers in Wikipedia's database, many of whose public profiles pale in comparison to Mr. Backer's. Adela Reta and Mel Sachs are just two examples. It's also curious that GongSnack, who initially targeted Mr. Backer's page, was a self-described communist (at least, before he removed that affiliation from his user page). It brings up the well-documented issue of political bias in online circles, since it looks like Mr. Backer's clients are Republicans. In the end, why not just err on the side of robustness? Wikipedia's database is clearly more robust with Mr. Backer's page than without. Deletion is unnecessary. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2018 (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.