Talk:Eugene Scalia

message: So this guy held a government position in the Bush administration which is not notable enough to have it's own wikipedia article and he argued on the winning side in a case that is not notable enough to have it's own WP article ("on the winning side" is very vague, how involved was he?).  The main notable thing about him appears to be that he is Justice Scalia's son.  The only source cited is his employer bio, not a secondary or independent source and definitely not enough to constitute "significant coverage" under the general guidelines at WP:NOTE.  Also only 3 pages link to this page, Justice Scalia's, Gibson Dunn's (which includes him in Notable attorneys with not justification of why he is notable), and a Harvard Journal which lists him under "notable authors" again with no explanation of why he is notable.  
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this guy and have no opinion about whether he is notable or not, only about whether the article and its sources establish his notability. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are you asking for someone to nominate this article for deletion? Boomer VialHolla 08:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  I haven't reached a conclusion about the issue of notability, but I support nominating this article for deletion. That said, I wasn't going to nominate it myself until I had a chance to research the matter of his notability. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Added afd because, like Astro, I feel it merits discussion, especially as, strangely, the person who started the page and added most of the information is not even able to discuss the issue on his own talk page anymore (he banned himself?). I'm glad to see you are willing to discuss as afd, and of course welcome a discussion. But seeing as how Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher managing partner Kenneth M. Doran doesn't have his own page, and the firm has added at least 27 new partners in the last 28 months, the firms desire to occasionally push the Scalia name into the press more than other partners isn't enough to distinguish him. 69.7.122.236 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  I saw that you didn't finish the last two steps in the AfD process. They're described in the AfD box at the top of the article. I would've finished them for you, but since the next step requires that a reason be articulated for the deletion, I didn't want to presume to speak for you without your permission. Like I said, I'm currently inclined to vote to delete the article, but I would like to do some research first. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

text:  Do you still want to nominate this article as an AfD? A different editor reverted your incomplete AfD nomination, but only because it hadn't been completed. I've done some more searching, and I came across another article (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/eugene-scalia-court-antonin-financial-reform-dodd-frank) discussing Eugene's career in non-trivial detail. However, I don't think that there's evidence of sustained coverage as required by WP:N, so I think that there's still an argument to be made for deletion. Astro4686 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable?  

message: According to the article, "Scalia argued the winning side in Wal-Mart v. Maryland in July 2006."
The "Official law firm biography" does NOT say that. It does say that he argued "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007) – Successful ERISA preemption challenge to controversial Maryland law that required increased expenditures on employee health care."
First, why is it even important/significant?
Second, can we fix it to "Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder (AKA Wal-Mart v. Maryland)"?
Any other suggestions?
Pinnygold (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wal-Mart v. Maryland" 

message: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# User: Evrik reported by User:68.231.135.128.   Thank you. —2600:8800:6082:A200:D956:1ED5:A2DC:7C1A (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noting that this was closed at WP:DRN shortly thereafter, with the reason: “Closed. The filing editor isn't trying to discuss anything, but simply making some sort of demand, although, because there hasn't been any discussion, it is hard to figure out what the filing editor is demanding. A demand for administrative action can be made at WP:ANI, but caution is advised when throwing a boomerang at an emu that isn't there.” Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 

message: Both in his career prior to heading the Department of Labor and during. There is no dispute in RS about this. It's clearly pertinent information to readers to understand the man, his career, and his impact. In many ways, it is more important to clarify this given that he was Secretary of Labor, which may give some readers the mistaken impression that he was distinctly pro-labor unless it is specified otherwise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the sentence that's in dispute: "As a corporate lawyer, he repeatedly hindered the implementation of efforts to improve worker safety and worker rights." That seems like a pretty clear WP:NPOV issue, no? 74.67.45.185 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead should cover how he weakened labor protections 

message: The caption under his photo identifies him as Secy of Labor.  He's no longer that.  I'd change it by adding his dates, maybe the word "former."
Btw, I read the other Talk items, including those re whether to delete the article.  I'm for keeping it.  Big Law likes to operate out of sight - can't tell you how many newspaper articles I've read re important cases that didn't even mention the law firms or lawyers.  I say bring on the daylight! 2600:1017:B81D:CA3D:0:51:421F:5F01 (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change photo caption?