Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryse Selit


 * 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. Consensus is to delete as per arguments provided ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maryse Selit

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable.

Claims to notability appear to be: (1) as a entertainment lawyer, her firm has had notable clients, (2) she's published papers, (3) she's appeared on television, (4) she owns a notable house, (this is mentioned in the refs although not the body of entry).

None of this puts her over the bar of notability. (1) is a standard "notability isn't inherited" case. (2) doesn't suggest anything more than an ordinary lawyer, nor does (3) really, the "Dr. Oz" appearance is not related to her work as a lawyer, this appearance appears to be as an unidentified audience member. And (4) doesn't cut it either. Different sub-notable claims to notability do not add up to one notable one. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the submitter of the AfD. Notability cannot be inherited.  She worked for some well-known clients, but she fails WP:BIO because she is not significantly more notable than the average attorney. NJ Wine (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article's subject does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO, and notability is not inherited. - SudoGhost 17:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do not delete for the following reasons: (1) this is not a case of "notability being inherited" because Selit's firm had notable clients, as stated by the submitter. Instead, the celebrity clients mentioned in the article are currently working with or have worked with Selit personally. Selit worked with numerous other celebrities (who are NOT mentioned in the article) including members of the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, WNBA, etc at Proskauer. While at Hogan & Hartson, Selit represented News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) which owns Fox News and other networks as well as numerous politicians and Washingtonians (Hogan is a well-known DC political powerhouse); (2) while Selit has authored numerous scholarly articles, this is only mentioned as way of background. (3) Selit has worked with Zoco Productions and appeared on SEVERAL Dr. Oz shows. The show in question was a 3-day experiment that aired for 45 mins on the Dr. Oz Show (and is intended to highlight the fact that Selit was involved in a fun experiment). Selit has been a frequent guest on other Fox shows, such as Stossel and Huckabee. (4) the fact that Selit owns a historical house is merely background. What is most distinguishable and noteworthy about Selit is not just the fact that she works with numerous celebrities, but her unusual time commitment to pro-bono advocacy. Selit spends about half of her practice on pro-bono matters and, in accordance with Wiki's policy on notability, Selit has been awarded an important award in recognition of her dedication. Selit received an outstanding pro bono award from Sanctuary for Families (prior recipients include Justice Ginsberg, Chuck Schumer, Judith Kaye, Denny Chin, et al). Selit is also affiliated with numerous charitable organizations through her board service. She is a great humanitarian who has shown a substantial commitment to improving the lives of underprivileged people, not just by dedicating a few random hours to pro-bono service but, instead, by dedicating half of her practice to it. This is definitely noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt123 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your arguments: (1) Even working directly for a notable individual doesn't make a person notable. For example, a graduate student doing research with a notable researcher is NOT notable, even though the researcher is; (2) A few scholarly articles does not make a person notable.  Otherwise every college professor would be notable. See Wikipedia's guidelines on assessing scholarly works; (3)I watched part of the Dr. Oz videos, and she appears to be more of an audience member who was chosen to be on the show than a commentator; (4) While I commend Ms. Selit's charitable work, there is a guideline called NOBLECAUSE which prohibits using worthy causes or honorable actions as a grounds for notability. NJ Wine (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help if there were some specific event or achievement of the subject, about which one could say, "She is the one who _____." Being an entertainment lawyer for a lot of celebrities just isn't distinctive or notable. Neither is appearing on various talk shows. If you're saying that she appeared on several Dr. Oz shows, instead of telling readers the extraordinary thing about her that got her invited, then you know there's a notability problem. The lack of any notable fact is why the article reads like a résumé. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  Keep  I am a new contributor to Wiki and even though I didn't create this article, I've contributed a lot after it was created. I find NJ Wine's comments pejorative and unhelpful, as a result of which, I may never contribute again. Why provide an eg. of a student when we are discussing a lawyer representing high profile clients, other than to be disparaging?? First, NJ Wine claimed her notability was inherited b/c the clients listed were Selit's firms and not her own. After he was told this was not correct, he came up with something else. We will arbitrate this decision if necessary as a quick review of many of the WP:ALIVE bios makes it evident that the hurdles being imposed here have not been required or met in other cases. According to Wiki's G/Ls, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable...and independent of the subject...If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" or "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." These requirements have been satisfied in the case of this article. Unlike NJ Wine, the comments made by Ben Kovitz are helpful and I am happy to improve the article based on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt123 (talk • contribs)
 * Struck out duplicate vote from User:Lmatt123, please vote only once. Hairhorn (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lmatt123, I apologize if I was too agressive. I spend much of time on Wikipedia evaluating articles for deletion, and I don't just randomly vote.  I read the Maryse Selit article, did a Google search on her, and then reviewed Wikipedia's policies on the notability of people. The article has 9 references, but references 2-8 are not predominately about her, but are instead are compilations of awards, papers, and notices, and include information about many people.  Reference 1 is predominately about Ms. Selit, but is not an independent reference.  Wikipedia's definition of an independent source states that an material from an employer is not an independent source, and reference 1 is from Hogan Lovells, the firm where she works.
 * In my previous argument, I provided an example of a student working for a famous researcher to illustrate that a person may have a notable employer or client, but that does NOT make them inherently notable. You state, "We will arbitrate this decision if necessary as a quick review of many of the WP:ALIVE bios makes it evident that the hurdles being imposed here have not been required or met in other cases." Although I understand your desire to compare the Maryse Selit to other biographical articles in Wikipedia, WP:INN states that such a comparison is not a valid argument, since it very possible that other biographical articles should also be deleted. NJ Wine (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lmatt123, welcome to the exciting world of encyclopedia-writing! Sorry your first experience has been so bumpy. It's a whole lot easier if you start with a topic or person for whom you already know an obvious, clear-cut reason for notability: a specific achievement, a specific attribute, something distinctive, unique, and important. Then you can write the article by summarizing what the sources say about that achievement or attribute or whatever it is. It's much harder to start with a topic or person and then search for reasons for notability. May I ask, why have you taken such an interest in the Maryse Selit page? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

BenKovitz Thanks for the helpful suggestions, I appreciate it very much and will keep that in mind for future contributions. Ms. Selit works tirelessly on causes I hold dear and individuals that society has forgotten. I am familiar with her work and outstanding pro-bono commitment and believed a Wikipedia article was a good way to document her dedication and achievements. Since the consensus appears to be that a standalone article is not warranted, do you have any suggestions for how this article could be merged? Thanks again for your help. Lmatt123 (talk) 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The best way to document Ms. Selit's achievements would be to get in-depth articles written about those achievements in the press, or to get a book published about her life and achievements (and some reviews of the book in major newspapers or magazines). Then, here on Wikipedia, we could summarize those sources. Publishers, newspapers, and magazines that exercise a lot of editorial control—meaning that the standard for getting published there is high—are the best sources. See also WP:SECONDARY. Sorry, I don't have any ideas for material in the present article that could get merged into another article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I have revised the article to accommodate the suggestions proposed by Hairhorn on my talk page in order for this article to be removed from AfD. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tania4lv (talk • contribs)
 * All you did was add further to the list of clients of the firm she worked for, but notability is not inherited. Hairhorn (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that is incorrect. These clients have nothing to do with the firms that she worked for and are personal clients of Ms. Selit. I also added various notable cases that she has worked on. The personal data that SudoGhost claimed was missing has also been added. What else would you like included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tania4lv (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just listing clients does not address notability (please see WP:NOTINHERITED). Listing a bunch of awards doesn't by itself provide any notable content. Lots of people have published scholarly articles, but that doesn't make them notable. You'll notice that the article reads like a publicity sheet for Mr. Selit, or maybe a résumé. However, you added something that offers some hope: you said she was involved in "many high-profile cases". If she played a particularly significant role in a high-profile case, like leading it or coming up with an innovative legal argument, that could provide the substance of a real encyclopedia article. Here are a few articles about people with, in some cases, very minor notability, but the basis for notability is clear:
 * Dale Minami (led the legal team in a controversial case about the Constitutionality of Japanese internment camps in WWII)
 * Stephen L. Braga (led a legal team that searched for 12 years for evidence that got Martin Tankleff acquitted after 17 years of wrongful imprisonment—and this is just on the border of notability; one could reasonably argue that the Martin Tankleff page should cover this topic well enough)
 * Iván J. Parrón (the entertainment lawyer who invented the on-line music store)
 * Linda Coffee (represented Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade)
 * David S. Kris (poor article, barely notable, but the basis for notability is clear: opposition to warrantless wiretapping)
 * If you can find a unique, important fact or two like that, you will find overwhelming support to keep the article. Notice that these articles focus on the few things that made their subjects notable; they provide some background info, but they don't try to list every TV appearance and press clipping (though they do contain some fluff, which we should delete). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. She was not an official guest as a lawyer on the TV shows.  As stated above, who she has as clients doesn't matter and who the people she worked for doesn't matter... the faculty adviser and student is a good example.  There is nothing inherently notable about her, so it comes down to references.  There are not independent and reliable references that that go into detail about her, so she fails GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Selit is definitely recognized as a notable lawyer in legal circles. She also does a great deal of pro-bono work and serves on various charity boards. She has won a number of awards for her work, including the distinguished SFF award for extraordinary pro-bono service. Wiki guidelines and policy do not set the criteria of Notability in stone mandating that every Living bio must conform to one particular standard. Contrariwise, receiving a significant award alone can satisfy notability (in fact, even repeated nomination for such an award, without winning it, can be adequate). I would recommend that you keep this article, as it only benefits Wikipedia. By way of note (and I'm not suggesting this should influence the AfD decision either way, the view log shows it has been viewed about 1000 times since its addition just 2 weeks ago). Ceylobo (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC).


 * While Sanctuary for Families (SFF) is notable and has its own Wikipedia article, I see no evidence from any source that the SFF award is "distinguished", or "significant". My opposition to keeping this article is primarily based on two Wikipedia policies: (1) independent sources and (2) noble cause. As I stated above, all the references about her either only mention her in a very limited manner, or are from her employer, which Wikipedia does not allow as an independent source. I don't see any articles specifically about Maryse Selit in any legal magazines, newspaper, or other independent source. Additionally, many of the arguments in favor of keeping this article contradict Wikipedia's noble cause guideline, which prohibits creating articles about people or organizations because of the subject's good works or good intentions.  Maryse Selit appears to be a successful attorney who has done a lot of pro-bono legal work, but that does not make her notable. NJ Wine (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Including this article does harm Wikipedia: it's essentially a résumé or publicity sheet for someone without substantial press coverage establishing a clear reason for notability. Including it encourages publicists to use Wikipedia as a way to get publicity for their clients. In this AfD debate, we've already seen the argument, "Other people who fail to meet the notability guidelines have Wikipedia articles about them." Please see WP:FIVEPILLARS. (If someone does find documentation of a specific, notable achievement by Ms. Selit, then all this is moot, of course.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding "a significant award alone can satisfy notability", can satisfy does not mean does satisfy. As NJ Wine noted, we don't have documentation that this award is of such significance that it establishes notability all by itself. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I do see that the SFF pro bono award is not listed on Wiki (but an article should be created as it is a highly distinguished legal award). Some of the other recipients, as noted in one of the comments above, are US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Federal Judge Denny Chin, Chief Justice Judith Kaye, Chuck Schumer, etc. I appreciate the points you're making but this article should not contradict WP:NOBLECAUSE because the award is only one component of it. Also, there are articles about Maryse Selit in the NJ Star Ledger, NY Law Journal, Robb Report, Metro Corp Counsel Vault Guide, etc. Hope this helps. robertsjoe 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:NOTINHERITED. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I trust the closing admin will note that all the keep votes appear to be from SPAs.Hairhorn (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There you go again with your accusations, which is clearly against Wiki guidelines. As per my response to your prior comments about SPAs and conflicts on my talk page, this is truly unprofessional and unacceptable behavior on your part. And if you are indeed a senior editor or admin for Wiki, this is grounds for legitimate disciplinary action against you (and I intend to document all your transgressions, which are numerous, and forward them to your corporate offices). Perhaps because no action has been taken against you yet, you've become complacent in falsely accusing and belittling people and making pejorative comments on your deletion submissions and edit summaries (specifically, in connection with this article, you wrote "Spammy references", "the fact that she is **just an** entertainment lawyer does not cut it"). I'd be truly interested to learn who you are in real life (beyond the edits you make on Wiki) to understand what make you so cynical about people? Judging from the commentary associated with your other deletions and edit summaries (which are in fact far more egregious than your comments on this article), you enjoy taking shots at people. Clearly, you must have no knowledge about the law of defamation and libel. I strongly recommend that Wikipedia give you some interpersonal communication training because you can achieve the same ends without acting in this manner. How come other senior editors, such as Bgwhite and Alansohn, for example, accomplish the same thing without the nasty narratives and unprofessionalism you constantly demonstrate? Also, I truly respected NJ Wine's apology for possibly being too aggressive. The outcome of this AfD is not important to me, however, your clear lack of respect for people and frequent bullying is. Finally, I'd like to know how I am a SPA when in fact for the short time I've contributed here, my contributions have covered about 10 different subjects (obviously, my interest lies in people and subjects I have personal knowledge about)?? Also, I've reviewed the other Keeps and some have been on here since '07. Not everyone edits Wiki articles for a living or has the time to be active contributors, but that in itself does not make them SPAs. I have no doubt the administrator will vote in your favor, but it will have nothing to do with your allegations of SPAs. Instead, since you nominated this AfD, it does not matter what the discourse is or how many Keeps you get in favor, you'll make sure to find the right people to support your deletion decision and bully them into going along with you, consistent with your pattern of bullying so many other contributors on this site (all of which I have documented). Who knows, it might even form the basis of a class action. While Wiki is a great not-for-profit that I admire very much, your grotesque behavior is  unacceptable and jeopardizes the validity of their mission (and believe me, there are tons of people complaining as a result of it). Lmatt123 (talk) 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. Notability is not inherited. Sergecross73   msg me   16:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not Notable as per guidelines. -- Tow Trucker  talk  05:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment - Perhaps this article can be merged. Any suggestions? Lmatt123 (talk) 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although you are allowed to comment as much as you like, you cannot vote twice. I striked the word "keep", and added the word "comment". I'm not sure that merger will be possible.  I looked at the Hogan Lovells Wikipedia page, but it does not list the name of lawyers who worked there.  There is the possibility that Maryse Selit could be notable per WP:ACADEMIC if she has had a lot of law articles published, and it could be shown that she has had noticeable influence in certain area of law.  The page mentions she has been published in the New York Law Journal and the Fordham Law Review but there is little additional information about her publications. NJ Wine (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Besides, it really seems more like a vanity or tribute article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject's advocates have searched for a week, and haven't found a published basis for notability. Actual press coverage on Google news archive consists of five brief mentions: two logging the purchase of her house, two in connection with short-term rentals or house-swapping her house, and one mention of her serving as a panelist at a fundraising event regarding fashion trends. No significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. The subject may one day become notable for her pro bono legal work, but Wikipedia must wait for other sources to write about those achievements in detail before we can summarize what they say. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Ben Kovitz Been very tied up with work and had no time this week but, based on your suggestion above, I intend to do some research on WestLaw this weekend to look for cases where Ms. Selit played a particularly significant role. I am not very familiar with Google news archive, but when I insert Maryse Selit, Esq. into Google search, it brings up 221,000 hits. I intend to review those as well and edit the article based on my research this weekend. Lmatt123 (talk) 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that doing "some research on WestLaw this weekend to look for cases where Ms. Selit played a particularly significant role" will in any way assist in establishing notability then you really, really need to review WP:ATA, WP:NOTABILITY, and other guidelines linked from those. I would think that, as an attorney, you would take the time to learn the local rules before entering the courtroom.  It's also appropriate to note here that you have admitted that "Ms. Selit is a colleague"; as an attorney (I say again) you should have realized the liklihood that your participation here would be potentially problematic.  In this regard it's already been suggested  that you review WP:COI and WP:SPA, and even if you took that advice at the time it might help if you took a refresher pass now.  EEng (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist comment The nomination does not have unanimous support. Lmatt123 should be given further time to improve the article, per his indicated intention. -- Trevj (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to see where a lack of consensus is being found; this discussion seems like a pretty clear delete consensus to me, especially as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Lmatt123 last edited the article on May 17, and "this weekend" has come and gone.  "I need more time to work on it" isn't a valid reason for a non-admin to relist a deletion discussion, AfDs are relisted due to a lack of consensus or lack of suitable discussion, this AfD has neither. - SudoGhost 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No harm in the rest of us going about our business elsewhere for a few more days while Lmatt23 comes to realize how silly he's been. Though on the record so far I have no doubt this article is a delete, I'm wait a bit more just in case.  EEng (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with giving Lmatt123 a few more days to improve the article. However, I disagree with the following comment: "The nomination does not have unanimous support."  Wikipedia requires consensus, not unanimity. NJ Wine (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, SudoGhost. There's currently lack of consensus in the !votes, although I do understand that the outcome will finally be decided based on the strength of arguments and not numbers. However, it's a reasonable assumption that there could be opposition to a delete close where Lmatt123 has indicated that he intends to undertake further research. If this BLP had obviously been subject to the ongoing inclusion of unsourced contentious material, then a relist would have perhaps been less appropriate. As it is, there's nothing wrong with allowing some more time. AfDs are rarely a race. If insufficient improvements/refs are presented, then I agree that the outcome is likely to be delete. Regarding WP:PLEASEDONT, that does not IMO take precedence over WP:AGF. As for being an admin or otherwise, that's of no relevance: I expect you may have considered questioning an admin's actions in the past too. HTH. -- Trevj (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is irrelevant; the good faith of the editor has no bearing on the closure. As for the admin comment, it is entirely relevant because Non-admin_closure is relevant, especially when this was not a valid reason to relist an AfD.  There is no lack of consensus in the discussion, and a consensus is not a unanimous thing. SPAs saying "keep" without actually giving a reason that has any relevance to Wikipedia guidelines or policies is not a lack of consensus.  Relisting a discussion is done for two reasons (the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy) neither of which were present here, and as such it should not have been relisted.  - SudoGhost 08:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is entirely relevant: Lmatt123 has indicated an intention to undertake further research, so we assume good faith that he will (I've dropped him a Talkback note).
 * The above comment s of No harm in the rest of us going about our business elsewhere for a few more days and I'm okay with giving Lmatt123 a few more days to improve the article indicate s that the relist has found some level of acceptance among other participants.
 * I agree that there's no lack of (policy-based) consensus. However, that consensus can change, and may do so if sufficient refs are added. It's not as if this is a 2nd or 3rd relist. I see no reason for any haste in closing this when there is reason to believe more info may be forthcoming. Please accept my apologies for the relist prompting such lengthy discussion; my intention was to avoid subsequent debate (e.g. at WP:DELREV if further sources were presented too late). Sorry.
 * WP:NADC is an essay. If you mean WP:NACD, that makes no reference to relists.
 * Per WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. Therefore, an admin can choose to close as delete when s/he deems it appropriate.
 * Hopefully that covers everything. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't use my words as a post-justification for the relisting. I said what I said only because the relisting was a fait accompli, plus the liklihood that a prompt close would trigger a flareup in Lmatt23's dyspepsia.  Had anyone asked my thoughts on relisting, before it had happened, it would have been Hell No! EEng (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2012 (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.