Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Erik David Choisy

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Erik David Choisy


Abandoned draft from September 2016 incorrectly tagged as a "Promising Draft". There is nothing about this lawyer's career that suggests he is notable, he mainly seems to have done work for free and then he moved to academia to work in admissions which again suggests he is not a very prominent lawyer. This borders on advertising but since an MfD has been requested, here we are. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Ping User:Hasteur who has also interacted with the draft as a reviewer. Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft has not been abandoned. Pro bono work should not be dismissed on that basis alone, as he performed this pro bono work under a presigious fellowship within the firm DLA Piper. The editor appears to ignore the main focus of the article that Mr. Choisy was the lead drafter of model consumer financial protection legislation, which has been translated into at least 4 different languages. This model legislation is currently being discussed for potential implementation via new legislation in Mexico. Though not as flashy as trial law, this represents a substantial work that has gained recognition within the field, and may have profound implications for the authorship and administration of future laws in countries where consumer protection is of great concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaccinesCauseAutism (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Key word there is "may". Drafting model legislation is not notable unless you can show the legislation is notable. Translation into 4 languages is trivial. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep If the draft has not been abandoned then no need to delete it. Plus the above user has made a good argument for notability. Egaoblai (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete With very little respect to VaccinesCauseAutism (POV advocacy User name? and also the creator of this draft) and Egaoblai. We asked the question previously "What makes this lawyer independently notable?" something that VCA has convienently chosen to ignore. Notability is not inhereted from sponsoring organizations (having a fellowship at DLA Piper does not make this individual notable. A generic directory reference and 4 references in first degree seperation from the subject (Subject wrote the piece or works for the organization). In short this page does not present enough  content to suggest that the BLP can pass the threshold to survive in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be any more important than thousands of other biglaw attorneys. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note that this guy graduated from law school in 2012. You would have to be one in a million to deserve a Wikipedia page six years out of law school. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

*Neutral - *Doesn't look like a promising draft to me, but the author hasn't annoyed anyone by submitting this nothingburger. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon as a "Promising draft" it will never be deleted G13 if the proponents of this template are successful. We need to make a decision because the page has no proponent and will sit as a permanent draft for the next 100 years otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac - Thank you for explaining what the problem is, which is that the stupid template is considered to be a way to preserve drafts. Have there been any discussions about the use of the stupid template?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed extensive and ongoing Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral - After discounting the "promising draft" tag, which in my opinion was not warranted, I am again !voting Neutral. This draft isn't necessarily "sitting as a permanent draft" for 80 years beyond the end of the world, because VCA is tweaking it.  It is still a nothingburger, but VCA hasn't done anything to annoy anyone.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great but you nor I nor anyone else can remove the Promising Draft template or we face sanctions so yes the page will sit until the end of the world if not made mainspace ready or deleted at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -Or that you can drop a t/p message to the tagger and let him/her know that the evaluation was bad and see whether your opinion changes his.her mind.At any case, dePRODers aren't under any automatic compulsion to !vote delete at concerned AfDs.My !vote is neutral based on RMC's reasoning(s). ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but the template requests discussion at MfD. There is no case for notability here - and if this closes as anything but delete I expect one of the Draft's supporters will move this to main-space so I can AfD it. Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.