Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Scorer


 * 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,  Nakon  17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard_Scorer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Hang-on I would like to inform Wikipedia that changes to the page have been done taking into consideration all of the points that were made. I feel that this page now meets the same type of layout, content, look as other solicitors. Please review and be kind. Thank you. Talk:Richard_Scorer isfutile:P 11:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * STILL DELETE I've looked at this again. The wikify elements have been improved. However the NPOV and Notability issues still remain. Also, the addition of various third party links appear to make this page even more of an advertisement/resume than the previous edit. Put simply I do not believe the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a wiki page. isfutile:P (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with reasoning here: Talk:Richard_Scorer isfutile:P (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The article is a POV disaster and needs major work. And most of the links found are simply of the type "Mr. Scorer, counsel for the plaintiff, said..." But some articles are more substantially about him, for example this from the Times. And others quote him extensively as an expert or public figure, rather than as a participant in a case, for example this from the Guardian. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is a self promoting CV which is neither notable or encyclopaedic. Wiki is not a Who's Who guide for lawyers and there is nothing particularly notable in this entry. The language is all highly suspect - "he" did this etc - the sources do not back up the statements - they actually suggest his lawfirm and clients brought the cases and he acted as a spokesperson to the press - therefore the sources do not back up the grandiose claims or provide notability for this individual. Possibly at a push a brief entry in Pannone LLP Solicitors, if that, but not a separate page. Herkuleshippo (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason it now says "he" did this, "he" did that, is that I converted all of those sentences from saying "Richard did this," "Richard did that." In its original form it brought to mind Melanie's Law, which states that articles which refer to the subject by first name instead of last name almost always turn out to be non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.