Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley D. Simon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was withdrawn, default to keep. Singularity 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley D. Simon

Bradley D. Simon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete as per WP:BIO. I tried to find some reliable sources but failed (at least through Google search). I think his notability is also questionable. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Today (27 March 2008) User:Lakpr requested me to have a look at this article once again since it is now cited with third party references. I have gone through those citations and found them really rich and reliable. Thus, I am withdrawing this nomination. Cheers! -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Niaz - I see that the philadelphia inquirer profile does not have a wokring link - I am working on gettnig copyright permission for it, and when i do, do you think this article will be up to snuff? Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakpr (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Niaz - Thanks for taking the time to review Bradley Simon's article. I would like to call a couple of points to your attention: Bradley Simon has been quoted and discussed in many news articles relating to his involvement in the Torricelli case. Many times, he may be cited under different variations of his name such as Brad Simon, Bradley D. Simon or Bradley Simon, which may be one of the reasons why you had a difficult time finding news articles about him. If you search the following term, for example, "bradley simon" and torricelli" - you will see over 40 hits on google from outlets such as Newsweek, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, CNN and more.
Regarding his notability, he has been involved in several cases that, I believe, qualify him as deserving of an article in the wikipedia biography project. As you will see from a profile written about him in the Philadelphia Inquirer, he is largely responsible for the downfall of a US Senator, which is not something every lawyer does in his/her career. Additionally, his involvement in the Bayou Capital was groundbreaking as it was the first of its kind. Representing Alan Hevesi is also noteworthy as he was an elected official being accused of abusing his position, which I think makes Brad Simon relevent to the public.
In the New York Times story I linked to in his profile, the reporter writes the following of SImon's involvement in the Hevesi case, "Mr. Hevesi changed lawyers this week and signaled a far more public and combative strategy. His new lawyer, Bradley D. Simon, has represented people caught up in public cases before, including David Chang, a businessman who was a key figure in allegations of improprieties raised about Robert G. Torricelli, the former United States senator from New Jersey."
I believe that, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, that is an objective, reliable source.
Lastly, he is frequently called upon to discuss issues of the day in the public sphere. For example, just this week, Reuters, USA Today and Agence-France Press called on him to shed light on what might happen to Eliot Spitzer after the shocking revelations of his illegal activities while Governor of New York State.
It is for the above reasons that I feel Brad Simon is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. I do, however, want it to be great, so I welcome your input as I go through this process.
Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.90.186 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
comment - if that's the case, then feel free to put your sources in the article so that it can be judged here at AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~-Ravichandar 10:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Of the external links, two are comments that he is representing someone, two are articles where he has been interviewed for comment. Neither of those I believe meet the criterai of WP:BIO. The profile might work towards proving notability, but I cannot open it from this PC. However, WP:BIO does state multiple secondary sources, and this is only one. If you are claiming that his notability includes being used for commentary, then two of the external links do kind of imply that. However, the article would need to be expanded to state his role as social/legal commentator. If all he is doing is commenting on the Eliot Spitzer case because of his association with it, merging with the article might be more appropriate than deletion. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Keep Since I reviewed it last, there have been substantial changes to it, including adding some secondary sources which do meet WP:BIO. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTINHERITED. He needs more extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources in his own right. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 10:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment In my experience, it is impossible to get copyright permission from the Inquirer. If we want to use a quote from there, it must be copied from a paper or microfilm copy, or a place that has the paid version, and inserted as fair use of a small quotation. But that does not mean it cannot be used as a reference. Presence in libraries is sufficient. DGG (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to the WP:NOTINHERITED comment, an article was added from The New York Times that discusses Brad Simon's career as a federal prosecutor as well as excerpts from a profile written about him in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Also added were the most recent examples of the news media seeking out his thoughts on major news stories. (Added by User: 66.43.90.186 )

  • Keep Those who commented earlier should reexamine the article--I think the third party references are now sufficient. DGG (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the new sources added to the article which I think now meets WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED as there is insufficient assertion of independent notability. Beyond the fact that this is still a terrible article, the subject clearly - clearly - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While I am open to your suggestions on how to improve this article, calling it "terrible" and stating that it clearly fails to meet WP:BIO standards when multiple other users think that it does (as shown on this page), does not serve to improve its content. While you may have strong opinions regarding this article, a lot of effort went into creating it, so your consideration and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism would be appreciated, while your insults are certainly not appreciated. Lakpr (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I said beyond the fact that it is terrible - the poor writing, shoddy organisation and general indifference to its subject are merely incidental to the subject itself not being of sufficient notability per our WP:BIO standard. This is a classic case of inherited notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Clearly I would not invest so much time in article if I was truly indifferent to the subject. It was intentionally written to avoid using subjective terminology that could not be verified with objective sources, per other suggestions. It is my belief that the facts associated with Simon's career justify his notability. I will take your suggestions regarding the writing style and organization of the piece into consideration, but I do not believe that those critiques are enough to qualify this article for deletion. Thank you for your input. Lakpr (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - 3rd party sources, notable, not one other issue it could be merged to per se. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


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.