Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin McShane

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. clear consensus that the subject is non-notable , and the article promotional . Either reason would be sufficient DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin McShane[edit]

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

Requested by User:198.103.184.76. The IP's reasoning: "Reasons for nomination for deletion are because the subject lacks notablility (WP:GNG), the article appears to be self-promotional (WP:SPIP), and the bulk of edits appear to have been made by accounts that are solely intended to edit this article." Lugia2453 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMO, the article fails WP:GNG with particular issues in terms of WP:SPIP. I could not locate sources to substantiate a claim of notability. The article is essentially biographical in nature (with several issues relating to WP:BLP) and clearly serves as an advertisement for the subject's business. The article has serious problems throughout relating to WP:NPOV but particularly for the info provided in the Major Cases section as well as the external links which appear to run afoul of WP:EL. At the same time, I would have no issue if all of this information were to appear on a user page. — RB Ostrum. 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional BLP devoid of anything but trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Im not sure how to do this but I will tell you that the reason you do not find Justin McShane to be notable is that you are not in the profession. I am also a criminal defense lawyer and I can tell you this guy is nationally recognized by many people in the forensics community. He has taught thousands of lawyers over the years and is well recognized in forensic science circles. He is highly respected in the field of forensic science and is very notable in those circles - forensic science & law. I suggest that his page remain up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.26.10 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC) — 216.86.26.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This argument is often advanced. I don't disbelieve you but Wikipedia's criterion is Verifiability not Truth, so you should find the sources to justify your claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Understood. I can tell you that the Boston Globe called upon Mr. McShane for comment when it ran a story on one of the United States biggest lab scandals. He was featured on the front page of the paper in this story. http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/09/29/how-chemist-drug-lab-scandal-circumvented-safeguards/uR3jTdvw4sWe3gLj0m2GnO/story.html I think that tends to show his notoriety in this field. After all they could call upon anyone the world and they chose him as one of their experts.

I would also point you to 182 different reviews from attorneys all across the US applauding Justin's work. http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/17110-pa-justin-mcshane-623862/endorsements.html

More support for his notoriety in the field is this upcoming seminar put on by the North Carolina Advocates for Justice. They also recognize him as notable in this field: "premier expert in the nation" http://vimeo.com/88015475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.182.54 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "notoriety" the word you want to use? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. Article is just an advertisement. The subject may very well be respected in his field, but that doesn't mean that he is notable as pertaining to WP:GNG, it just means he's doing his job. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NewsBank search shows ~150 results in reliable newspapers around the country. None of them are full length biographical pieces, but that is not required. They are all about cases he has been involved in, which garnered press attention and for which he is quoted. A person can be an expert in a field and widely quoted and thus become notable. If the article has promotional problems that is content-level, AfD is topic-level, articles shouldn't be deleted due to content. -- GreenC 15:13, 24 March 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.