Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Seaman


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Scott M. Seaman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Busy fellow, but ultimately not notable. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Very busy fellow indeed. If we can find any reliable sources for his awards listed here I'd be tempted to vote keep, but right now I'm not seeing notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A vote here to not delete. This guy is not only busy, but has made major contributions to the advancement of insurance law and in the area of cancer as well. There seems to be a lot of reliable sources cited already. It is a keeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawscope (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The above is the user's only contribution to the site.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)



I would say raising millions for cancer research and adding substantially to public awareness and education on cancer is noteworthy in and of its self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onarollnow (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Hmm, yet another brand-new account voting on this issue. What a coincidence!&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A no vote for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish somebody who isn't Scott Seaman would vote on this...&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Chowbok has an ax to grind and cannot support the position he advanced in nominating this for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's against policy to create articles about yourself, as well as to use multiple accounts for voting. I'll let the admins decide if my argument has been adequately presented.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not created an article about myself or voted under multiple names. What is against policy is to use this as a vehicle to make snide comments, attack others who are voting and commenting, and nominate articles for deletion based upon your own bias and personal agenda. It is disappointing that rather than conceding the lack of merit regarding your "not notable" ground or debating that issue on the merits you have decided to go this route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. So were somebody to, say, do a checkuser on CityofChicago1998, Onarollnow, and Lawscope, they wouldn't see that they were all at the same IP?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If somebody, say, read the article fairly and without bias, they would see that it is noteworthy and should not be deleted. If somebody, say, read your comments, they would conclude that you have failed to support your nomination for deletion and have gone way off course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityofChicago1998 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seaman does not meet the notability requirements for inclusion in WP. To be notable he must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", which he has not.  His work is cited, but only on a very limited basis.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I really, really hate the fact that nominators are allowed to badger others who state their opinions on the inclusion-worthiness of a nomination. It is a form of aggressiveness akin to edit-warring, it is unseemly, and it has the distinct flavor of WP:OWNERSHIP. It should be a banned practice. Nominate, state your case, and get the hell out of the way. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Despite his commendable volunteer work, I am not seeing a claim to notability on behalf of the article subject. He is clearly a successful attorney. The page is detailed and sourced, albeit to sources which do not "count" in a notability challenge, in that they are not independent and do not deal substantially with the subject. I am unfortunately finding nothing in the way of third party sources that speaks to encyclopedia-worthiness Carrite (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2011 (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.