Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Ammori
notable person, but edit promotional parts. I think the annoying promotional language has clouded some judgment about the subject’s profile. Subject does likely fail #C1, but Subject is a very well-known person who clearly meets #C7 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography WP:ANYBIO. Many of the arguments for “delete” are mistaken. User Category Mistake is mistaken that the subject is quoted in “*literally* a handful of stories.” Subject’s http://ammori.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/marvin_ammori_resume-cv-2011.pdf academic CV from 2011 is online and shows (pages 9-12) what looks like 70-100 citations and media appearances as an expert before 2011 (over a dozen in the Washington Post alone, others in the NYT and WSJ). A Google News search today, March 15, 2013, shows several entries (including Der Spiegel and TechPresident, as well as an article by Subject in Slate). Some quick searches reveal far more than a handful of articles even in 2012 and 2013, after the CV. Striking13 disputes that the subject “’first proposed’ the Protests against SOPA and PIPA|SOPA Blackout.”  This is a mistaken concern because that is not what the article says. The article says he first proposed a holiday/activism event one year later (whether or not that event itself is noteworthy). That he was deeply involved in the SOPA Blackout is clear from the Fast Company profile. (It is unclear why Striking13 is so sure that profile was “badly sourced.”) There are other indications he was deeply involved in fighting SOPA, including a http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-01-18/SOPA-PIPA-protest-reaction/52641560/1 USA Today story on the day of the blackout. Striking13 also says: “Nor is there any independent evidence of the subject's notoriety or recognition for ‘net neutrality’, ‘copyright’, or ‘Google's anti-trust investigation’, among academics, lawyers, or other experts, more generally” Net neutrality. The Subject is recognized for net neutrality, if any practicing lawyer in America is. The most important (perhaps only) major network neutrality case in the US is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC#Significance_of_the_decision this case. http://articles.philly.com/2008-07-31/news/25246196_1_comcast-customers-marvin-ammori-jonathan-s-adelstein This profile confirms that he handled the case. The person who handled Citizens United is recognized in campaign finance law. This point is perhaps Subject’s strongest. Copyright. Sopa involved copyright. Google anti-trust; this one required some searching. This article in Forbes (written by another academic) mentions the hiring of “big brand-name paid influencers for Google: http://aei.org/files/2012/10/05/-what-does-the-chicago-school-teach-about-internet-search-and-the-antitrust-treatment-of-google_132249480630.pdf Robert Bork (recently deceased), http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/09/first-amendment-protection-for-search-engine-search-results/ Eugene Volokh, http://ammorigroup.com/clients/ Marvin Ammori.” Thus, the article, a post-mortem of the case, suggests that the Subject is a “brand-name,” and worth mentioning for the case. Subject is also mentioned in http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=26C96A5E-6F76-4182-922F-85A091DFD79E this article about how Google beat the feds.” Quotes on the http://www.amazon.com/On-Internet-Freedom-ebook/dp/B00B1MQZNW Subject’s book, from prominent academics and Internet activists, are not drafted by the Subject and help corroborate the other sources above, though they are fairly general. Yes, the article appears promotional, but the Subject clearly meets #C7. Edit not delete
— User:Lau, 15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)