Talk:Scott Bullock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not sure what makes this lawyer particularly noteworthy. Please explain. Pharmboy 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just alerted to the fact that this wikipedia page might qualify for 'speedy deletion.' While the entry may not reflect this as of yet -- the page is not yet complete with references and links -- Scott Bullock is absolutely qualified and important enough to have his own Wikipedia entry. Mr. Bullock is a nationally prominent litigator, having been lead co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London. Bullock works for the Institute for Justice, which obviously has its own page and was co-founded by another attorney of Scott's stature, Clint Bolick, who has his own Wikipedia page as well. In its current state, the page may not meet Wikipedia's necessarily strict criteria, but that is due to the content not yet added to the page and not the entry's subject.

Jake315 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Important enough" or "qualified" are subjective terms, and have no effect here. You really should read WP:notability before contesting to see if the person *really* meets the criteria. They may, but if what you wrote was the most important cases, I would say not. There are tens of thousands of lawyers in the US (I know, I worked in a firm). Most argue "first amendment issues" and the like, daily, so that is not notable by itself. Being lead council on a SCOTUS case would quality (co-council, it would depend) What matters isn't what WORDS you use, it is if the person fits the notability policy, period. Extremely well written and researched articles are deleted every day because they were not notable enough. It may be that you need to instead merge all these lawyers into the main article, and have a subsection for each one. I would argue that would likey be the solution. Unless they are truly notable....they are not. Pharmboy 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If "being the lead counsel in a SCOTUS case would qualify" and Scott Bullock was one of two co-counsel and made the oral argument before the Court in Kelo v. City of New London, which was one of the most influential and divisive Supreme Court cases of this decade, I believe you just made the case that he qualifies.

Jake315 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And the problem was that you DIDN'T make that case in the article, requiring someone to follow and research to learn this. This is why you must ASSERT NOTABILITY in the article, and not rely on the links. Whatever it is that makes the person notable, you need to make that perfectly clear in the article, or this happens. Simply "argued before the US Supreme Court in..." would have sufficed just fine. Remember, THOUSANDS of articles are added regularly about ordinary people and don't belong, and need to be weeded through. Thousands. It is a huge task, and is done 100% by volunteers. Pharmboy 14:17, 7 August 2007

(UTC)

"He was co-counsel in and argued the landmark case, Kelo v. City of New London, one of the most widely discussed Supreme Court decisions in decades." I guess I'm confused as to what further research you needed to conduct to learn this other than reading the article. If there is a standard wikipedia method to asserting notability other than directly writing it in the article please let me know.

Jake315 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)