Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher M. Simon


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Christopher M. Simon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined the speedy request by for two reasons: a) Working on high-profile cases for notable people indicates significance enough to pass A7 and b) no admin wanted to handle this request for more than 24 hours (while the rest of CAT:SD was cleaned up), so I think it's not a clear-cut enough case for speedy deletion.

Researching this subject however yields no reliably sourced coverage apart from one or two passing mentions. The most I could find is a footnote in a book with some biographical information, noting that he is a descendant of George Washington. But nothing substantial about his work or anything, both with and without the middle initial, can be found, so he fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG.  So Why  07:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment 1: Quick query to for clarity: Why did you not speedy delete the article yourself? (I note that this article was deleted on A7 and G11 by  in January this year. ) 2. Quick query to : You're a practicing lawyer. Would you consider archiving this Afd and allowing some other administrator to take a look at DGG's CSD? (Please ignore this query liberally if it sounds silly). Thanks.  Lourdes  12:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think DGG (correctly) tagged it instead of deleting to ensure that two people review the article's eligibility. As for the other point, I never thought anyone having a certain job could be considered biased when it comes to others with the same job (I'd happily delete an article about myself for example) but I understand your point. As I said, I mainly declined the speedy because it was tagged yesterday and I noticed it in CAT:CSD for so long despite multiple admins patrolling that category during that time. This lead me to assume that all of them thought it better to let someone else decide. Thus I thought AFD would be the best way to handle it. That said, if another admin believes this clearly meets A7 or G11, I'll be willing to let them delete this page without any hard feelings. I don't think we should archive the AfD though. There is no prohibition against speedy deleting an article while it's listed at AfD but if another admin declines it as well, we would have to start anew. Regards  So Why  13:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks. That's absolutely okay with me. Thanks again for the quick reply. Lourdes  13:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, per nom. Haven't been able to find relevant sources confirming that the subject meets GNG/BIO. Lourdes  13:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Analysing a couple of cases on Fox News does not stand up the claim "gained national recognition as a legal analyst". National recognition happens when the analysis is quoted approvingly in other publications. FWIW these appearances were not included in the version that I deleted. However, whilst I agree that an A7 deletion is probably not appropriate a G11 deletion still would be. However, since we are here at AfD it is sensible to let it run its course and then unimproved recreations can be deleted as G4. Just Chilling (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I listed both A7 and G11 as reasons, but the nom gave only a reason for not using A7. But G11 is usually a little subjective.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * G11 requires the text (not the intent) to be exclusively (non-fixable) promotional. This was not the case, so I didn't mention it here. I understand that some editors assume that any A7-article was created with the intent to promote and thus fits G11 as well but that's not what that criterion says. The text of the article - the lack of notability notwithstanding - was pretty NPOV, clearly not beyond salvation by stubifying if the subject was notable, so G11 didn't apply. Regards  So Why  15:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources are Youtube clips of him appearing a few times as a pundit on Fox; he played no legal role in these cases. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per my usual standards for lawyers. He was not on law review/journal, nor a law clerk, nor argued any major appellate cases, nor served in any bar leadership position, nor did anything else that might make him anything more notable than another lawyer. An argument could be made that he's an expert on tort law. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.