- 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 through consensus and WP:SNOW. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Aarons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though it's a well-written article, there's nothing in here that demonstrates that this criminal defense attorney meets WP:BIO notability guidelines. Author created article about one of his clients as well Robert Ray Fry and a few advertising articles about non-notable companies that were speedily deleted; edit pattern suggests WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would totally disagree the attorney in question doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lets first consider: 1.) The Attorney in question Represented a number of notable clients in cases which made national/international headlines. 2.) Robert Ray Fry, who was one of his clients is one of the last 2 people on death row in New Mexico. The death Penalty has been repealed. 3.) Robert Ray Fry, assuming he is not spared, will be the last person to die via capital punishment in the state of New Mexico. 4.) From a case law standpoint this attorney is important as decisions in cases in which he has played a key role have been used as precedent in the United States Court system. 5.) The subject in question is therefore important to wiki project law. Meanie (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see WP:BIO and WP:PAID. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a public figure who represents high profile clients, in numerous cases.
Per Wiki:Bio A person is presumed notable if he or she is the subject of multiple published secondary sources. - At least 100 newspaper articles, multiple TV interviews (Including the Los Alamos Case(National), Robertson High Hazing Case(Intl Attention),and Robert Ray Fry Trial (Historically significant individual in their own right - though not for good reason).
Per Wiki:Bio The sources are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. - The subject clearly didn't write the media articles, the book about the case, or other media case.
Per Wiki:Bio - Needs to be noted for more than one event - Subject is noted for hundreds of cases, including more than a dozen high profile cases spanning 2 decades.
Meanie (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject is merely mentioned in a number of sources; there is no significant coverage by third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The individual in question was mentioned 221 times in the ABQ Journal since 1995. And has had similar billing in the other 4 major papers in the state. Meanie (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will repeat one more time; "mention" != "depth of coverage." OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am in the process of reading through the articles. Its going to take a while as there are 221 at the one paper. Some of them are more than mentions, some are quotations. Meanie (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1. WP:NOPAY: Assuming Meanie is the author he gets a vote, but what about the Subject himself? Let me state unequivocally I have not nor will I pay Meanie as author or anyone else $1 to advocate against deletion. WP:NOPAY We can safely assume that he advocates because he believes in his articles. At the risk of having a fool for a client, I advocate for myself here.
2. WP:COI re Robert Fry. As the subject of this article I have a conflict of interest when I make changes but my intent is only to fill in details or correct errors. Jamie, the lone naysayer to date, accuses: "Author created article about one of his clients as well Robert Ray Fry" and, in nominating the Fry stub for deletion at the same time, "most likely created as a "companion" article to Fry's lawyer Stephen Aarons in an attempt to boost his perceived notability." I was wholly ignorant of any risk of deletion when I suggested adding Fry, not to pull myself by the bootstraps but because Fry is the first defendant to face not two but three separate death penalty trials; he stands to be the first prisoner ever executed after his jurisdiction abolished the death penalty - if you followed the legislative history you would know that the political compromise was to abolish the death penalty for future cases only if Fry fries first. Passing and signing legislation with one serial killer in mind is fraught with constitutional ex post facto law issues. When one naysayer attacks the author personally, your guiding principles should be verifiability and neutrality of the article itself.
3. Notability. Jamie's only substantive objection, although he attacks more than one facet. Of course I am notable! Notability(people) presumes a person "to be notable if he has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources." Meanie is sifting through several hundred articles quoting me during high profile cases,. Coupled with these hundreds of articles quoting me are thousands discussing my case without mentioning my name. I can't find where the Albuquerque Journal said the Torreon case was the top story of that calendar year among its readership, but the execution of Clark first nEX Mexican executed since 1961 - Fry in line to the be other one, DNA exonerating Rowley from death row, the Los Alamos case triggering a closed session of the House Subcommittee about security at the multi-billion dollar Laboratory -- each are high profile of themselves.
4. Depth of Coverage Basic coverage requires: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Jamie says, "The subject is merely mentioned in a number of sources; there is no significant coverage by third-party reliable sources. ...I will repeat one more time; "mention" != "depth of coverage." Did he bother to read those sources, or does he just assume trial lawyers only deserve mere mention? There is no need to quibble over "multiple independent sources" quoting from courtroom arguments and post-acquittal comments, let's look at a seventeen paragraph article in 1998 -- 'Hit Squad' battles for defendants, url=http://newspaperarchive.com/santa-fe-new-mexican/1988-10-23/page-11?tag=hit+squad+aarons&rtserp=tags/hit-squad-aarons?ndt=ex&pd=23&py=1988&pm=10%7Cnewspaper=Santa Fe New Mexican, date=10/23/1988 -- and another "page one" top of fold article published thirteen years later --Lawyers Feel Duty To Make System Work Outstanding criminal attorneys also enjoy challenge and rewards, Santa Fe New Mexican, 04/22/2001 -- about me and my trial team. Court TV captured my portly person for hours, CBS and last week's Dateline interviewed for minutes, and the Monster Slayer book devoted a chapter to my background and followed the trial step by step. None of these examples are mere passing references.
5. Reliability. In attacking the Fry stub, Jamie complains, "Had you really read WP:BIO or WP:Reliable sources, you'd know that government records don't apply, and neither does a book by a non-notable author." The Monster Slayer author is non-notable, and frankly I don't understand why paperbacks about serial killers sell like hotcakes. But after this complaint, at the risk of turning this beloved article into a Frankenstein, this article now cites Caspar Weinberger (a notable) and his extended memoirs about our foreign policy debate over a quarter century ago in Oxford. In 2001 a British reviewer of the newly released book commented: '"I have no doubt, however, of the highlight of the book. Weinberger recounts a debate he took part in at the Oxford Union in 1984 ...Weinberger gives a nice vignette of the debate ...and quotes his own speech at length ..." Oliver Kamm, April 27, 2002, http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0895261030.
Wiki only requires these basic criteria for notability, but please don't forget the unique breadth (from Anwar Sadat and Weinberger thirty years ago to last week's Dateline interview re Rowley) of public view at least in terms of geography and decade. Thanks for your consideration. Steve Aarons (talk) 12/18/2012 — Aaron095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep- The subject is notable for the reasons I have previously mentioned. Please see the Stephen Aarons Talk page, I am taking note of where I am changing/adding sources (Im not building Frankenstein - this article could have 700 sources but I know thats too many.) So what I am doing is changing sources about the different cases to ones about the defense Attorney. Of which there are many many many. It is my opinion this article will be even better sourced, and tighter after this debate than it was before. 221 Hits on the ABQ Journal and around 173 hits on the Santa Fe New Mexican plus a litany of other appearances, interviews, etc - and the fact these sources are used in the article makes the subject both notable in the context of New Mexico, and the context of American Criminal Law.Meanie (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - this is nothing more than an advertisement/cv/resume masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - CV / Legal Resume. Notability is not inherited. Meaning, being the lawyer on a notable case does not automatically mean notability is passed to said lawyer. Looking at the sources provided for the (largely un-notable cases) his name is not even listed. WP:GNG clearly states: "SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE" PeterWesco (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Just to note I am in the process of beefing up the references - As some of them don't reference him but there are a good 50 or more in the papers throughout the state - and some national media which do - and not in one specific case. Ill be detailing them over the next 2-3 days as I make the edits. I have purchased access to the paper archives for the area and have discovered Aarrons, in addition to what is on the internet has been cited 221 and 170 times respectively since 1995 in the two major papers in New Mexico - setting aside having been on court TV and done interviews with media on several cases. Perhaps some of the cases aren't notable enough to be in the article but you cant dispute the media cover that: The Cabin Killings, Robert Ray Fry Trials, the Robertson High Hazing Case, and the Quintana case got. They all made national headlines - and in all cases the attorney in question in this article was quoted multiple times by multiple publications. - Which is why I am working on changing out some of the citations because there are better references which will demonstrate notability.Meanie (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should re-read WP:GNG before looking at all of the 50 items that reference him. Quote: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail If a reference you are digging up is not about him, but merely contains a passing reference to his name in a larger topic then that does help. Same for press releases, "leisure pages", society section, etc. When an article needs to search high and low to find even passing mentions that is a red flag that the person is probably not notable from a NPOV. Wikipedia is not a vanity/self-promotion site used to enhance billable rates and create snazzy Google searches with a great infobox and picture. PeterWesco (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And if you look at the two sources I got around to updating and adding today - you will see it would satisfy GNG as fully half of the articles are quotations of the individual and a discussion of how he made the argument in the trial. When I say there are a large volume of items in which he is the or a primary subject - I mean it - Its why I am being so stubborn about this. And over the next couple of days while this debate goes on I am going to present those sources - They'll be readily identified in the articles talk page to keep everything orderly. Meanie (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ill give you an example of the types of articles I am using to fix this - from Major Media sources in the state - IE the ABQ Journal. : Which is titled Defense Attorney goes on the Offense "The attorney for 20-year-old Shaun "Sagger" Wilkins pointed an accusing finger Monday in his opening statement at one of the state's main witnesses in the December 1995 Torreon cabin murders.
Defense attorney Stephen Aarons called Wilkins' trial "Popcorn's last revenge," referring to codefendant Shawn "Popcorn" Popeleski's expected testimony pinning the deaths of a young couple and two children on Wilkins and his buddy, Roy "Eazy" Buchner, 19. In Aarons' theory, it was Popeleski who committed the murders out of revenge after being beaten up and "ranked out" of Albuquerque's 18th Street gang.
Aarons took pains to point out to jurors that neither Popeleski, 19, who was charged as an accomplice in the deaths after being heralded as the state's chief witness, nor Lawrence "Woody" Nieto, 20, who was convicted last month as an accomplice to the murders and sentenced to 1301/2 years, will testify in person. Invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, they will testify only through video and audio tapes and won't be available for cross-examination.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Wilkins and Buchner, the suspected "trigger men," as well as Popeleski. Buchner is scheduled to go to trial Oct. 14. No trial date had been set for Popeleski as of last month. "
Would you not agree if the articles I am using are like this that would meet the criteria of substantial coverage? Meanie (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are a ton of references, but none of them discuss this individual. In each, he is mentioned as the attorney-in-fact, and sometimes he gives a quote. This is not editorial coverage. The article is so overly promotional, that it seals the deal. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO This is an ad for a busy, successful lawyer.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NN, WP:SPAM, WP:RESUME. The refs that do mention Aarons are for the most part passing mention, which does not = notability. Appears to be WP:PEW and thus a WP:COI. GregJackP Boomer! 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of them discuss this individual? Did you bother to read "4. Depth of coverage?" The TOPIC of the seventeen page article which GNG does not require; the topic of the page one article, a primary subject in hundreds of pages of the book and discussed in depth in Caspar Weinberger's memoirs. /SASteve Aarons (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've crossed out your !vote. You may comment on this discussion as much as you'd like, but you may only !vote once. MisterUnit (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have reviewed the section where he was in the same room as Caspar Weinberger at a debate and also searched the memoir for "stephen aarons" on Google Books. I have now changed by vote. PeterWesco (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment WP:SIGCOV You did not change your vote, PW, but you should have. Don't confuse the fact that the "American Captain" shared equal time on the podium with Weinberger in the televised debate with how the latter makes reference in his memoirs. How many thousand hits to ""Aarons" did you find in the Monster Slayer book? No comment on the 17-paragraph article? Just the 391+ (by Meanie's count, not 50) newspaper articles spanning three decades alone: can they be "trivial" under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV when being quoted about participation in countless high profile trials? You decide. /SA Steve Aarons (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment WP:SNOW PeterWesco (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2012 (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.
