- James J. Leonard Jr. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Reasons given by editors nominating for deletion were unproven and incorrect. Links in deletion request did not give correct search based-on topic's name. Closing admin refused to review or discuss deleted article. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'll admit that the closing admin's response to your query was rather curt, but there's no other possible way that AfD could have been closed. If you have sources, tell us what they are. Vague assertions like, Many sources US national coverage, and mentioned in NYT, books, etc. wide coverage, are never going to carry any weight. Do the searches, and present the specific links to the sources you found, so people can evaluate them. You should have done that in the AfD, but since we're here, just list them right here in the DRV discussion.
- As a practical matter, if you used to use a different account, the best way to move forward would be to add a note to your user page (I'm guessing that would be User:ChangalangaIP) stating what the old account was. Then everything is totally transparent. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that tip I will do that now. I have requested from closing admin that the article be temporary restored or at least made so I can put it in my sandbox. There are sources and refs in the article or do I basically have to rewrite it from scratch again? It was not that easy to write since I did not want it to be promotional in any way. For example, the subject was awarded something by his peers called "Superlawyer" which I guess is a thing but I left that out since it seemed promotional/possible advertising, but it looks like an honor bestowed by his peers voting.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
|
- Copied from Google cache: James J. Leonard Jr.
Esq.
Born Atlantic City, New Jersey[1]
Citizenship US
Alma mater Villanova University School of Law[2]
Occupation Law
Website http://leonardlawgroup.com
James J. Leonard Jr. is an attorney based-in South Jersey. He has appeared on television in his role as lawyer to high-profile cases and clients. Leonard has been featured on The Real Housewives of New Jersey, as himself in the three-part series, Teresa Checks In.[3]
He also appears in the 2016 show The Killing Season.
Personal life[edit]
Leonard works with his wife, who is also an attorney at the Leonard Law Group in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Professional career[edit]
Leonard practices law from his firm in Atlantic City. He was the publisher of Boardwalk Journal magazine.
Leonard represented a client who was never prosecuted as a suspect in the Atlantic City Serial Killer cases. [4]
Leonard has become known for representing clients who perform as reality television talent.[5] After Teresa Giudice was sentenced to federal prison, she became his client and he has also been her spokesperson on some matters while she served time.
Acting on behalf of his clients and their cases in the media, Leonard has also represented Philadelphia crime family members.[6]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "James J. leonard Jr., Esq.".
Jump up ^ "JamesJLeonardJrEsq".
Jump up ^ "The real A.C. lawyer for 'Real Housewives'".
Jump up ^ "Trail has gone cold in unsolved case of four slain Atlantic City prostitutes".
Jump up ^ http://archive.northjersey.com/arts-and-entertainment/real-housewives-legal-woes-create-a-cottage-industry-1.655132?page=all
Jump up ^ http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/mob-boss-nicodemo-scarfo-dies-in-prison/article_ef79d495-0556-586d-addb-b25b21a08180.html
Categories: New Jersey lawyersPeople from Atlantic City, New JerseyVillanova University School of Law alumniLiving people
|
All of that is from the original article, which the participants of the AfD reviewed and found lacking. Perhaps I didn't express myself well the first time, but what I was asking was if you had any new sources, which were not available in the original AfD. It sounds like you don't, so this DRV should be closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. Do you have some relationship with the subject? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Zero relationship with subject. I am a fan of his work. Yes to answer your question about other sources, they are multiple, national and numerous. Putting them all in would make the article look promotional imo but I did request editor feedback about what would make the article better and never got any. (also contacted "deleting" editors on their talk pages to ask).That the article was "lacking" is not what was given as reasons for deletion. I could probably make the article more lengthy or more sources, and whatever it would take to improve it. I guess I could write an "improved" version? The subject will probably be on TV again this summer, so even more details about the subject may become available. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
noise
|
- Also--I don't know if this is the correct place to discuss this or not but A--the prob. with "news" not linking to the true numerous referenced sources in the AfD was a technical prob. with the AfD, and It is probably wrong of me but in my opinion notability is established and seeing that as reasons given by the closer and other editors seemed wrong since I cannot see where notability is not established.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AND, I really do not appreciate, despite repeated attempts at questioning the given reasons of "notability" problem, that no one would engage in a discussion with me about how the subject could possibly fail WP:NOTE. I checked every single reason given and then question the deleting editors about how a subject who apparently fills all criteria for notability could "fail" based on that reason. It really makes me wonder if a bot is deleting, not really looking at what they are doing. Not meant as an insult but there were no comments defending those edits and they are nonsensical to me. If someone said it was a bad article "lacking"--fine or they just don't like lawyers or think they are spamvertising or something fine but there is no lack of notability for this subject so I'm worried about how that was doneTeeVeeed (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ALSO--and I have never done one of these before, so please excuse whatever I'm not doing correctly here, and thank you for the guidance, BUT--the editor who nominated the article for AfD had prodded the article and I unprodded it (with full disclosure that I created the article), but it seemed a little pushy to get the article deleted in my opinion. I am requesting that the article please be undeleted, and I would improve it. There are spacing problems I think and any other help getting it improved would be appreciated. I still don't see how it could posssibly fail notability.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ALSO MORE--so there is a blogger who writes about mostly Bravo TV, who has some criticism for the subject. If the article is lacking criticism, something could possibly be found on her blog? tamaratattles.com/?s=leonard (she calls him an "oddball lawyer"--not sure if her blog is appropriate for BLP reasons? I really would appreciate some real answers about why the article needs to be deleted since I will probably submit it again, and knowing VALID reasons for deletion since I edit a wide variety of articles mostly, (not creating very many) and something like this article I would personally not question any notability issue except for the technical problem with the AfD which did not produce correct search results based on the guy's name I guess with JR. and middle initial with a period. So since I mainly edit articles that I don't create here, my NOT understanding how the topic is considered "not notable" is not something that I want to leave unsettled. So.....is it possible that the article itself does not provide notability? I thought it did and asked deleting editors to actually read the article, (which I do not think they did or they would see notability)--so I am asking for guidance that will help me with future editing decisions that I make. I actually think that I have another local lawyer who I would like to add to the project but he will probably pass for notability as he was an elected official at some point.
He is written about in Mafia Prince: Inside America's Most Violent Crime Family and the Bloody Fall ... By Phil Leonetti and also Turning the Tables: From Housewife to Inmate and Back Again. He has appeared on National network and cable television numerous times representing his clients and I guess if the article is lacking some of those sources could be added with some text or to the text that is already there.
TeeVeeed (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So-in trying to figure out just what a nomination for deleting editor would consider "good" notability, I noticed that one of the "deleters" had done substantial editing to an article about David E. Sorensen. This did not help me at all since there is basically little notability in sources. I don't know much about Morman church articles so I posted a question about this on the editors TP and never received a reply. This is the editor who said: "Delete The mentions are still all passing, not substantial coverage."-----which is NOT TRUE or does not really make any sense to me, and furthermore the David E. Sorensen article has exactly ZERO national notability or coverage outside of a church publication except for an obituary and has carried a template requesting sources since 2014. Sorry for discussing differences with deleting editors here if it is not the place, but I am concerned for the reasons mentioned and maybe others at this point and I'd like to see this matter reviewed correctly.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
- What people are looking for is some sources which are (1) Directly about the subject, so not passing mentions, not merely quotes from the person, or mention that the person is representing some else etc. (2) The source has to be reliable, blogs more often that not will fail this, anyone, you, me, my pet cat, anyone can setup a blog and write whatever we want on whatever subject, there would be no indication that anyone else has an real interest in that, or that it's fact checked, or indeed that the person writing hasn't just made it all up. (3) It has to be intellectually independent, the subjects own website, or website of companies they work for, or PR agents etc. etc. aren't independent and so don't help for assessing notability, since of course they are likely to write about the subject, much the same way my personal site or my companie's site has info about me.
- Even getting those there will still be a level of judgement applied. Many editors object to a high reliance on "local" sources, since local media tend to be "biased" towards representing information of local concern, a local paper (say) will likely write about local students who are perceived to be doing particularly well in some competition or another, this usually doesn't indicate that anyone outside that local vicinity (let alone worldwide) will have any interest in that person.
- So what's being asked for here is to list a few (say 3 or 4) of the sources which you think are best based on the requirements of addresing the subject directly in detail, are intellectually independent and are published in reliable sources. No one can comment on your believe there are numerous sources in the abstract, they need examples to tell you why they are good or bad. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapse the irrelevant noise in this discussion. Drv is not a venue to attack opposing voters or impugn their motives. Do it again and I close this. The only relevant thing is to provide the reliable sources meeting GNG that you claim are in existance, if you can't just say, so we can close thus. Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (by nominating editor article creator) Well that was what I was trying to do by pasting the cached version. [1] Could be used as a source. Subject is covered extensively throughout this book. Also [2] Also, all mentions in the article about being a tv lawyer, can be better sourced, there were actually so many national TV networks and publications as sources that I did not put them in article because I thought it was redundant. Featured prominently in The Killing Season on A&E for example.TeeVeeed (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion review is a venue to discuss and address failures to follow the deletion process or policy. It is not a location to get a "second bite at the cherry" and make new arguments (or repeat old ones) that belong at AFD. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well please keep in mind that I rarely participate in AfD and have never done a deletion review before. So I can see where I myself did not follow the AfD process correctly (asked questions on deleting nominators talk pages for one instead of AfD). As far as this venue, the review process, thank you for stating what may be obvious to people who are regulars but I am sorry I'm ignorant about it.TeeVeeed (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Our rules are not always obvious, so it's understandable that new editors don't know them all. My suggestion to you is to read up on the WP:DRVPURPOSE to understand what Deletion Review is for. What you're claiming is that the other editors in the AfD were wrong. That's item 1 on the not list in WP:DRVPURPOSE. You should also read WP:GNG, and WP:BIO to understand what we require for an article about a person, and WP:RS to understand what kind of sources we require. At this point, it's pretty obvious that this DRV is not going anywhere, so you could save everybody some time by withdrawing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you but, I have not found yet how to withdraw, and two I think that it is pretty clear that reason number 5 "if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion." applies? Not by other editors or closing admin but by myself. Also the technical prob. with linked "news" etc in the AfD. In the event that I can withdraw this, I plan on re-submitting the article after trying to improve it, since I have most of it in my sandbox anyhow. I don't feel like venue shopping this matter, and again, sorry for mistakes here but it was linked as "the next step" in the closed AfD, so I thought it was the thing to do. My question is, IF the article is improved with more sources and ref. is that a good idea for what to do here? Thank youTeeVeeed (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no official process to withdraw a DRV, but if you just write something here saying that you want to withdraw it, some admin will come along and handle the technical details. There's no reason an article can't be resubmitted later, in improved form. The best way to do that would be to work on it in draft space, i.e. Draft:James J. Leonard Jr., and then go through the Articles for Creation process. But, please understand that there's no guarantee that a new draft will be accepted. And, looking at the version that was deleted, you have a lot of work ahead of you to research the kind of sources that we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
