Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Hamilton (lawyer)


 * 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 of the debate was keep and editorialise. Jerzy, User:Geogre is merely taking an Eventualist viewpoint, and that's not at all a Bad Thing. Now, for the, ahem, "votes": we have ERcheck, who wants it kept and indeed did some excellent work expanding the article; Jerzy, who nominated the article but argued that Geogre's opinion should be discounted by "a responsible admin" (as, I hope, a responsible admin, I must disagree); and Geogre, who wouldn't keep unless it was expanded ... which has now happened. Gentlemen, I call that consensus. You are, of course, free to disagree ... that's why I have a talkpage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Neil Hamilton (lawyer)
Nom & vote Del on this niche lawyer with "547 of about 904" Google hits for
 * "Neil Hamilton" lawyer farm

If he were notable, his article would have drawn added content in its 35-month history, on top of the two editing sessions by the same editor, User:Vera Cruz whose user page redirects, presumably on the basis of sockhood, to (the banned) User:Lir. --Jerzy•&#91;&#91;User talk:Jerzy&#124;t]] 02:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ... Google search reveals additional bio information. The article should be expanded. ERcheck 18:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That there is add'l bio info merely strengthens the case against retention: it could easily have been expanded in the last 3 years if that were worth doing. We start from the presumption of n-n here, and verifiable notability is what it takes to retain a nom'd article. The above is not an arguement for Kp, until evidence of notablility -- perhaps from that further info -- is presented. --Jerzy•&#91;&#91;User talk:Jerzy&#124;t]] 18:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did some simple searches (Neil Hamiton, law, agriculture and got 562,000 hits) and found info to expand the article. Hamilton has a lot of references from law schools around the US. I don't know that lack of expansion over time should be a measure of notability. I don't think "agriculture" would be considered a niche in the midwest. The American Association of Law Schools (of which Harvard Law School is a founding member) has an Agricultural Law section, of which Hamilton is still a part. ERcheck 18:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote yet, but comment: A lot of notable topics haven't been touched in the past three years.  I've worked on major composers, african american artists, and other biographic articles that were stubs or just didn't exist.  The fact that they didn't have an article didn't say anything about their notability compared to the number of texts that stress their importance.  The "three years" argument adds nothing to the vfd either way, imho  --Sketchee 19:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if not expanded: The figure may be notable, but, as I suppose everyone knows by now, I believe in voting on the article, rather than the topic. There is little room in a biographical article for the CV styled listing of credentials, and the article does nothing whatever to explain the effects he has had on law or agriculture.  All we get is that he has a job and wrote some.  That's incomplete to the point of not establishing the notability.  Indeed, we do have huge gaps in Wikipedia coverage, but there are times with a feeble something is worse than nothing.  This is an article that justifies CV postings and Random J. Professor.  Certainly, I would leave it for the closer to look at a diff between nomination date and closing date and look for expansion.  If there isn't any, I recommend deletion and waiting for an encyclopedic article.  Geogre 20:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've expanded the article. Hamilton seems to be a lot more than Joe Professor.ERcheck 04:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have recently argued for "failure to expand" as a sign of the impossibility of a good article on the topic. On the other hand, there is a very strong consensus that AfD is not about the content of the article, except (as with "saves") as evidence about the encyclopedicity of the topic. IMO, a responsible admin would discount any "Delete if not expanded ... bcz AfD should not be about topics" vote -- or even count it as vote for Keep, since the voter has demonstrated regarding the topic as encyclopedic, by saying expansion could save the article. --Jerzy•t 15:28, 23 November 2005 (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.