Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Diamond

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. Three relistings ought to be enough; and although the number of editors participating in the AfD has not been overwhelming, there seems to be a clear consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Diamond

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

This article is troubling as it seems to be a promotional piece written by the subject, thereby violating the guidelines of WP:Autobiography and self promotion It was properly submitted and approved under the Articles for creation process, but a search does not indicate any discussion of the submitted article before its approval.

A review of User contributions to the article indicates that 87% of the edits were made by the User:jamesdaviddiamond, the subject of the article (the percentage becomes higher if we delete bot edits) and conversely, 128 of jamesdaviddiamond's 164 edits (i.e., 78%) were to his autobiographical article. This looks suspiciously like a Single Purpose Account.

When one considers the question of notability, there are three categories to consider. The subject is an attorney, a political figure, and an educator.

There are no formal notability criteria for attorneys and similar professionals, and therefore he falls under the general notability guidelines which caution that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Examination of the content of the subject's documented activities indicate what looks like a standard career of a professional attorney. There seems no sign of any out of the ordinary distinctions that would make him a notable attorney; the reference to his designation as a “Connecticut Superlawyer” [1] links to what looks like a directory of attorneys deemed to be qualified in certain specialties, rather than a noteworthy attorney.

He has held public office, and so fits under the Notability Guidelines for politicians. However, he has only held local office and does not seem to meet the criterion of being a "Major local political figure"; rather he falls under the caution that "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee [political] notability."

He has been an educator, and so fits under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Here, again, he falls far short of the criteria for academic notability.

As the guideline about autobiographies cautions, "People will write overly positive impressions of themselves." This article seems to suffer from such inflation of perceptions.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - individually, none of his accomplishments are that notable, but he seems to pass may standards, barely: expert in Indian (sic.) law, senior editor of a law school publication, city councilman, specialized admissions/certification, etc. The only reason that I'm holding back is that a lot of his accomplishments have been, to be blunt, run of the mill for lawyers: assistant DA, lobbyist, adjunct professor, etc. If it is kept, I'd cut out the fluff, and stubify the article. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EditorJohnny (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)He seems to meet many of the standards for an attorney (Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys) having been an editor of a law school journal, a legislator, handled a notable case, taught law. I think the page should be edited and not deleted. I am going to try to curtail some of the self promotional materials — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorJohnny (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a sockpuppet investigation has been initiated to determine whether User:EditorJohnny is related to User:Jamesdaviddiamond. There is currently a backlog in the sockpuppet investigations so this may take some time. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sockpuppet investigation, mentioned above, has closed, blocking User:EditorJohnny as a sockpuppet of User:Jamesdaviddiamond, who has been cautioned about using alternate accounts "for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position". EditorJohnny's support for keeping the article can be ignored and Jamesdaviddiamond's use of a sockpuppet weakens the case for keeping his autobiography. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been silent to date throughout the entire deletion debate, silent during the review of what is referred to as sockpuppetry, or use of alternate accounts. During this period I went about the business of editing various articles which interest me, including making minor edits of the autobiographical article. The users who have participated in both discussions appear to have honorable community-minded intentions and to be unbiased. Although I wholly disagree with the conclusions reached regarding sockpuppetry, a user has been deleted and it is time to move on. As to Professor McCluskey's SteveMcCluskey conclusion that the case has been weakened for keeping the autobiographical article, nothing can be further from the truth. During this process the article has been edited and improved and the edits are wholly consistent with the comments and suggestions made on this page. When it comes down to it, the question appears to be whether the subject--me--is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I leave that judgement to the community and only ask that my career be reviewed in its entirety and not a piecemeal fashion (legislator, attorney, educator, grassroots lobbyist, prosecutor, author, academic, speechwriter, etc.) as it is the uncommon breadth of experiences which make it notable. (I prefer not to engage in this debate, but by way of example, and it is just one brief example, few former criminal prosecuting attorneys after a 30 year career would spend a year studying American Indian Tribal Courts and Tribal Law and devote time to research the lessons society can learn from indigenous communities and link it to societal need for community healing following school shootings). If, after reviewing the merits of the article the community reaches the conclusion that the article requires more detail of notable accomplishment, or should be edited (as into a stub) or even deleted I shall gladly live with that conclusion. Jamesdaviddiamond (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, for instance no press coverage of note. Falls short of WP:NPOL as has not held elected statewide position, for instance. Predictably, fails WP:ACAD as experience is as an adjunct faculty, with Ph.D. in process, with no publication or citations of note. Several times not much does not add up to much, let along enough.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this note on the article's talk page seems relevant, I'm copying it here without further comment (SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)):[reply]

Only 12 attorneys in the State of Connecticut have achieved certification by the National Board of Legal Speciality Certification as Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialists.^[1] This national certification is only available after proof of proficiency in the criminal trial specialty, review of litigated matters, peer review and examination--in this case at the Yale Law School. In addition the subject has been selected as a Super Lawyer in Criminal Defense in CT and for the New England region every year since 2007. This only happens after peer nomination and upon a vote of his peers. It cannot be bought. "Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations." ^[2]Jamesdaviddiamond (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.nblsc.us/index.php?section=find_board_certified_lawyers&category_id=2&state=CT&city=&zip=&first_name=&middle=&last_name=&search=%A0
^ http://www.superlawyers.com/about/

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the accomplishments would seem to meet any of the criteria we use to determine notability. The achievements outlined above might be significant professional achievements but they are not enough to suggest that just holding such a position would result in the sort of significant coverage in reliable sources that we require (the substantive basis of specialist notability criteria). Ordinarily I would expect an experienced WP editor or two to step forward and offer to fix at least what can be fixed. But I imagine those offers haven't been forthcoming because of the dishonest sock-puppetry and the wiki-lawyering (or actual lawyering in this case) that has accompanied this article and AFD. Lesson to learn folks - Wikipedia editors will help those who approach their dealings here with honesty and integrity. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:30, 2 July 2014 (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.

[1] ttp://www.nblsc.us/index.php?section=find_board_certified_lawyers&category_id=2&state=CT&city=&zip=&first_name=&middle=&last_name=&search=%A0

[2] ttp://www.superlawyers.com/about/

[1]

[2]