Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von G. Keetch

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. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Von G. Keetch

The world is full of lawyers. I see nothing that distinguishes this one - fails WP:BIO. Ros0709 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This lawyer is in the news a lot. See this Google News archive search and this one. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keetch has been the main representative of large coalitions of religious groups in making presentations of Amicus Curie briefs to the Supreme Court as well as many other courts.Johnpacklambert (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - what separates him from other church lawyers? The fact that he has argued cases in front of the US Supreme Court does not necessarily set him apart from the other lawyers doing their job. The fact that local media carries him with regularity is insufficient without demonstrating what he has done in terms of notability aside from simply being a mouthpiece. This bit of an article does not show that. B.Wind (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the rather poor formatting, the article has plenty of non-local sources that are sufficient to have him pass the notability guidelines. Anyway, he's a lawyer in secular courts, not simply a church lawyer. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The link provided by Eastmain disproves rather then establishes notability. The news links don't cover him. They cover different cases in which he was to some extent involved. In total, the ghits merely prove that he's semi-notable in Utah's legal community, thus falling far short of enycylopedia-worthiness. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that many of the cases Keetch has been the leader of mulitple lawyers. He is not just involved in Utah, but has been closely involved with legal issues in Washington, Oregon, West Virginia, Tennessee and quite porbably other states. He was one of the two lead authors of the most widely cited study on the issue of regulation of religious land use, and was one of the key witnesses in the hearings that led to the passing of the RLUIPA. More importantly, his testimony has been sited to demonstrate why the RLUIPA is a legitimate use of congressional power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, most cases are remembered by their plaintiffs and respondents, not the lawyers of record. How many people can state the attorneys of record of Roe vs. Wade without researching it? B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the lawyers who brought the case are notable. For example, if all Thurgood Marshall had done his entire life was bring Brown v. Board to the court, he would be notable. Anyway, you are still ignoring that it is the testimony that Keetch gave to the judicaial committee and his paper or religious land use, not just the many cases he has been involved in, that make him notable. I should have put Wyoming in the list of states where he has been involved in important cases, there is significant role in the Handcart company site issue comes to mind.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (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.