Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Moore (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 was   delete.  Sandstein  05:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon Moore (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

deprodded by an anon. Fails notability, in that there are a number of passing mentions due to reporting of various trials he has prosecuted, but I haven't found any independent reliable sources writing about him. Well known != well documented dramatic (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not seem to be sufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.


 * Comment. Could we address the question whether readers might want to know something about this person who has been involved in import issues? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  12:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - a good comparison would be Judith Ablett-Kerr. A major newspaper thought it worthy to send a features writer to research and write a feature story about her life. - for Wikipedia's purposes this demonstrates her notability, and we really should have an article about her. It appears that no one has done that for Simon Moore. dramatic (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, we can address that issue. Since it appears that no articles exist about this individual from any reliable sources, it can be assumed that no reader might want to know something about this person.  That is the issue:  No mentions outside Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, and there is a shortage of information about him even within that trial.  The event may be notable (and has an article) but outside the one event, the lawyer isn't, per the guidelines at Wikipedia. If there are multiple significant coverages by major papers or other reliable sources that I have somehow missed, I would be happy to reconsider. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 April 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.