Deletion of George Baxter (lawyer)

Comment: I've written earlier today that Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith#When_everybody_knows,_and_it_puts_us_at_risk,_can_we_still_assume_good_faith?|I can't assume good faith with for-profit autobiographies of non-notable people. This was written arguably when a person could still write their own page on Wikipedia and claim innocence. However, this is basically a hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. In fact, the lawsuit he won, and his extrajudicial comments, contributed to homophobia in the age of AIDS. The real problem is that, |outside of that case, he hasn't really done anything notable. A Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22George+Baxter+(lawyer)%22+-wikipedia&sxsrf=ACYBGNSBmZGBX5ocJTcHh2-xpHDjO2D9Vw:1578519958037&ei=lk0WXqn8AZOr0PEPou-n0AE&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwipn_qK_fTmAhWTFTQIHaL3CRoQ8NMDegQIDxAx&biw=1366&bih=657 reveals nothing new ''about him'' as a person. ''https://www.leagle.com/decision/1996413144nj2691278 Snyder'' was decided on charitable immunity, a statutory doctrine under New Jersey law (which has its |uniquely odd features such as Alcohol laws of New Jersey|its convoluted liquor laws.) The ''Snyder'' decision was https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9524912 criticized by scholars.  California https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2295136/nnv-v-american-assn-of-blood-banks/ declined to follow the ''Snyder'' case, but https://books.google.com/books?id=qlFR0B05q0EC&pg=SA3-PA39&lpg=SA3-PA39&dq=%22snyder+v+american+association+of+blood+banks%22&source=bl&ots=wx1sSGWq_Q&sig=ACfU3U19KP27BaZ73Xb3fGVCl_1sZNb3sg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjemamtgPXmAhUDP30KHWyOBNo4ChDoATABegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=%22snyder%20v%20american%20association%20of%20blood%20banks%22&f=false a New York trial court has followed it as precedent. The consensus nationwide https://books.google.com/books?id=Kc4-BlWh_BoC&pg=RA1-SA2-PA44&lpg=RA1-SA2-PA44&dq=%22snyder+v+american+association+of+blood+banks%22&source=bl&ots=DVYHKSpTBS&sig=ACfU3U3E71b3pLRNb5nQ4FNLT7CzWtl_fQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjemamtgPXmAhUDP30KHWyOBNo4ChDoATACegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22snyder%20v%20american%20association%20of%20blood%20banks%22&f=false appears to make plaintiffs a higher burden than ''Snyder'', but https://books.google.com/books?id=ag4aZzUBBwAC&pg=PA392&lpg=PA392&dq=%22snyder+v+american+association+of+blood+banks%22&source=bl&ots=RyJ8eQHsWq&sig=ACfU3U1gx4YygR_nygUsjAq2PPm8ut1Cfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjemamtgPXmAhUDP30KHWyOBNo4ChDoATADegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=%22snyder%20v%20american%20association%20of%20blood%20banks%22&f=false Virginia and Louisiana have followed it. The ''Times'' article names him once. As a lawyer, he fails
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ODD)