Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Phillips

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. Tone 16:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Phillips

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

Article is written in a very unencyclopedic manner, full of puffery and exposition. I suspect WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIO as several brand new WP:SPS are involved. Basically a WP:COATRACK for the lawyers various cases, and almost nothing about the actual BLP, because all of the sources just quote him in passing and are actually about the case, not the person. Since none of the sources are actually about this person, WP:N Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article reeks of WP:AUTOBIO. It's telling that none of the cases mentioned (as of a couple days ago) in his article had their own Wikipedia articles and were only mentioned in the John Phillips article, as if he were the key figure in those cases. There are many references in the article, but few of them actually mention the subject. Fnordware (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This individual is not notable. The article sounds more like an advertisement for his business. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy may be notable, more as a publicity hound than a lawyer, but this article is flagrantly promotional and seems to based based on his advertising websites rather than written independently. Nothing salvageable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per cogent arguments by Fnordware and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Thanks for saving me a lot of unnecessary typing.) Quis separabit? 01:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete -- While much of the article does seem to be advertisement-like, he is fairly notable. This article could be improved to a true BLP with the addition of relevant information, and the removal of the not-so-relevant information. I believe that editing the page would be a more favorable choice over deletion. Greedo8 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to what factors make you think that Phillips is indeed notable? Maybe if you could expand on that, here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I wanted to say how surprised I am by the fact that everyone is assuming he wrote it. It's entirely possible it was written by a fan of is, or someone who read about him online and thought he needed a page. I don't think we need to jump to conclusions simply because it appears to be read as an advertisement. Regarding his notability, it says he's an analyst for HLN/CNN, he's supposedely appeared on multiple tv programs, and was a lawyer in the Dunn shooting case (which did receive extreme media attention). I'm not saying he's the most important guy out there, but I've seen much less significant figures have wikipedia articles. Greedo8 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer the following. I think it's pretty clear that either he wrote it, or someone wrote it on his behalf (e.g., a "hired hand"). Whereas celebrities, politicians, singers – even serial killers – often have "fans" and "groupies", run-of-the-mill personal injury attorneys typically do not. Also, I think we need to keep separate the issues of "popular" versus "notable". These are just my thoughts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key for me is that I have seen no third-party reliable sources that are actually about him. Of the 41 references in the article, there are many non-RS links that are about him, like his own web page or bar association web pages. Of the references that are RS, many don't mention him at all, and those that do just include a quote of his in passing. As Pondo said, we don't want to make a page for every person who has ever appeared on television or been mentioned in the news.

I'd also like to point out that in the Dunn shooting case Phillips was actually the lawyer during the civil suit, which was settled out of court and received far less coverage. The lawyers in the high-profile criminal case appropriately do not have their own articles, except for Angela Corey, the State Attorney, who has plenty of RSs to justify one. Philips always appears alongside Jordan Davis' parents—should they have their own articles as well? Anything approaching an RS for John Phillips is related to that case, so WP:BLP1E applies. Fnordware (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just going to make the same distinction between the civil and criminal cases. The latter received all the media attention. The former, being settled out of court, did not even come to a trial. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A useful comparison might be Benjamin Crump the family/civil attorney for the Martin case. In comparison to this subject, Crump has a small, but verifiable list of reliable sources directly discussing him, and his history with civil rights cases. There are no similar sources for Phillips. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look at WP:BLP1E, I agree with Fnordware, especially the part of "likely to remain a low-profile individual." I have changed my stance accordingly. Although I'm still not sure there's enough evidence to claim it was created by a "hired hand", I concede it's entirely possible. Greedo8 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Greedo8. It's a pleasure having people like you in the Wikipedia community.

It does appear that Mr. Phillips has been using various methods, including his Wikipedia article, attempting to become more high-profile. The Jordan Davis trial seems to be the latest instrument. If he ultimately succeeds and becomes notable, then I'll look forward to a new article being started for him based on reliable sources. Fnordware (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think we should not include in the Wikipedia every lawyer who has appeared on television or represented cases that have appeared in the media. If so, we have to allow for the inclusion of hundreds and hundreds of lawyers, who, ultimately, are as irrelevant as this that concerns us here. This guy has created an extensive article here on Wikipedia about himself, and that might make you think that he is someone important. Make no mistake. He has no merit to have on his own Wikipedia article. No other articles link to this one, except the article about Michael Dunn (created few days ago) and another article in which he is mistaken for another person of the same name from decades ago (1934). Pondo (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 February 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.