Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Brooks (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to California Innocence Project. This one has been open for a few days past it's 7 day period and relisted twice, and I'm not seeing much benefit from relisting. Given this (and the nomination period lapsing more than a few days), I have decided to close this one myself. I have considered both this AFD and the previous one in 2015 to determine my reasoning.

AFD is not regarded as a substitute for cleanup, so I haven't given much weight to the fact the article has not been improved much in the last four years. I've given some, but not much weight to who has contributed to this article. What I have observed, is in the two discussions, those advocating for keeping the article have argued so weakly, based on barely meeting the GNG criteria as founder of the California Innocence Project.

Those over the two discussions that advocated deletion opined that most mentions of Brooks in the provided references were passing mentions only, and the references provided were mostly discussing the organisation, or clients of the organisation. Nonetheless, it has been opined that there may be mention specific to the subject of the article in reliable sources which may belong on Wikipedia, but not necessarily in a standalone article.

I have honestly considered closing this one as no consensus as well, but balancing both of these discussions, the outcome I have determined here is to redirect the article, and recommend that merging any relevant information from this into the main article the most appropriate outcome. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brooks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is another article that was created by User:Dylanexpert as part of undisclosed paid editing for the California Innocence Project. Two articles from that batch of undisclosed paid editing have already been deleted. This article is supported primarily by self-published sources from the California Innocence Project, press releases by the CIP, and other such promotional material that ultimately had origins within the CIP. It is quite clearly a puff piece, which should be evident from a cursory reading of the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are interested, the two other AfDs relating to Dylan's undisclosed paid editing can be found here: [[1]] and [[2]]. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be too much use from California Innocence Project as a source, but it scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did some quick counting, and about half of the sources come from the California Innocence Project or were posted in some fashion by the CIP or the subject of the article. Some of the other sources do not even mention Justin Brooks. Example: [[3]]. Many others may include a passing mention of Justin Brooks, but do not cover Justin Brooks in any detail - this type of ancillary mention does not establish notability. Example: [[4]]. In short, there are really no reliable sources that discuss Justin Brooks in any detail. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more about the online articles like this one [5] or, [6] or, [7] that tells me he can pass GNG, Did you do WP:BEFORE? And there are a lot more news articles with Justin's Brooks name over them of you have a good look. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked them out. The first link you've provided is a column in a local paper that's more about Brooks client than Brooks. The second and third links have passing quotes by Brooks, on a topic which does not concern Brooks. Simply getting a two-sentence quote in an article does not confer notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots more like that, that's why I said weak keep! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't get me wrong, I understand your reasoning. It's just that a bunch of little quotes here and there over the course of the last 20 years isn't enough, at least in my opinion, to establish notability. As far as the non-self-published sources go, they're almost all about people other than Justin Brooks. Sometimes he'll weigh in with a quick two-sentence soundbite, but that's not really sufficient. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In order to generate more discussion, I am pinging every editor who was involved in the last two CIP undisclosed paid editing AfDs. List: User:Lubbad85, User:Bakazaka, User:Skirts89, User:Justlettersandnumbers, User:Cullen328, User:Lapablo, User:Grayfell, User:Dylanexpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Sans (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened upon an essay, WP:REFBOMB, that describes my problem with the sources in this article. A quote from the essay: "Another common form of citation overkill is to load an article up with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability without properly vetting the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject... Examples of this type of citation overkill include... citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree. An example of this is a source which quotes the subject giving a brief soundbite to a reporter in an article about something or someone else." That last bit - "a brief soundbite to a reporter" - describes quite a few of the sources used in this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - borderline WP:GNG but agree with Govvy that this probably just falls on the side of keeping. Article needs a good cleanup though. Bookscale (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears there is a central question that needs to be answered: Does the fact that this topic scrapes by GNG override the current condition of the article, which seems to mostly promote the CIP. It appears all participants are aware of WP:NOTCLEANUP, but perhaps the promotional aspects of the current prose mean the article would be better off removed from Wikipedia entirely, since no one has volunteered to re-write the article. I don't feel consensus has been reached here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the need for deletion becomes evident when we consider what the article would look like if we stripped out the promotional elements, the citations to the CIP or to a CIP-controlled source, the subject's LinkedIn, and any press release material. You might be left with one paragraph talking about how he was sometimes quoted in passing by local news outlets. The fact remains that there's no significant, independent coverage of this subject. Just because he got a quote in an article saying "this case will be a hard one for the prosecution" or something along those lines will not confer notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The subject is borderline notable as it is only referenced in passing, and most of the sources that deal with the subject in depth are from the CIP. If no more independent reliable sources are found then I think it would fail WP:GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, we're halfway thru the 2nd relist and there doesnt seem to be much interest amongst editors for this afd either way, the way this article is written it does appear to be mainly about the California Innocence Project (agree with 78.26 relisting comment), how about a redirect to CIP for which he appears to be known (and maybe change the sentence there - "by Director Justin Brooks and" to "criminal defense attorney and wrongful conviction advocate Justin Brooks, and..."? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2019 (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.