Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Benowitz

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. henrik•talk 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Benowitz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, reliable sources. Although this subject has appeared in many reliable sources, both in a professional capacity and as a pundit, he has been only the subject of coverage in passing — coverage involving either his clients or someone altogether unrelated. Most of the coverage I found was in the subject's capacity as spokesperson or in press releases. As a pundit, his commentary speaks more as to the notability of the topic at hand (Casey Anthony), and not his expertise; those that the media has comment on such cases WP:INHERIT nothing. Even when this subject has represented notable people, the coverage was not substantially about him. This subject passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:ANYBIO because he's not actually the subject of much any coverage at all. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references to the subject are either passing mentions or self-published sources. He does not appear to have notability of his own. Will Beback talk 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of nominator and Will Beback. Clearly promotional. Attorneys get interviewed all the time about cases, 99% of the time it is the client who is notable, the attorney is just doing their day-to-day job, which is not notable. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given in the nomination. The article reads a bit too much like a promotional advertisement, or a lawyer's résumé highlights. It is not just a matter of tone. It is also a matter of importance. It falls short on that score too.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the nominator for deletion,"subject has appeared in many reliable sources" which means he is a recognized expert in the world outside Wikipedia. There is enough detail for a decent wiki article including this lawyer's DOB which means there is probably lots coverage for him out there. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that such coverage is not substantially about the subject. See WP:GNG. If reliable sources haven't given substantial coverage to the subject, mentioning him or even quoting him as a client's spokesperson does not inure to his notability. If you think expertise is a notability indicator, point to a policy. Where's the substantial coverage, and alternatively, why do you think guidelines would not require it? Unless you can find such coverage, I hope you'll consider striking your vote. JFHJr (㊟) 19:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.