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. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan S. Gassman[edit]

Alan S. Gassman (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)

A lawyer with the usual list of impressive sounding credentials and achievements, but not so much more so than every other lawyer. No signs of any independent coverage about this lawyer. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wondered if he might be notable as an author , but almost all his books are either self-published or locally published by the Florida Bar Association & found in no libraries outside Florida. The only 2 that are not are published by Tax Management Inc. and are practical guides, found in no worldcat libraries. Highly promotional article. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete I would suggest edits to this article before considering deletion. A lawyer publishing and writing is still significant in the legal community, even if emphasis is in Florida. Bloomberg BNA speaker/presenter is definitely on the national level. Could trim down some of the promotional language and personal details.User:sok6213 18:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — sok6213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Hi WikiDan61. In reference to your nomination of article Alan Gassman for deletion, there are outside sources and coverage of his work. See footnotes 23, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 in particular, which include mention of prominent Florida cases he was involved with as well as a bio piece. Also see footnotes 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26 regarding citation in national periodicals and publications. He further distinguishes himself in being a published author. If there is anything that can be done to edit the article to refine its appropriateness please let me know, but I think there is sufficient evidence for notability.-the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan1245 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Okay, this discussion is sorely lacking in reference to the applicable Wikipedia notability policies, to wit:

1. The general notability guidelines per WP:GNG require multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject per WP:RS for inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Generally, this means that self-published works and works published by closely affiliated organizations don't count, nor do works written by the subject. What we're looking for are third-party publications that discuss the subject, i.e. attorney Alan Gassman, in some detail, such as newspaper or magazine feature articles; trivial mentions and routine coverage are ignored for the purpose of establishing notability per WP:ROUTINE.

2. As far as I can tell, there is no specific notability guideline for practicing attorneys, and their notability must be established per WP:GNG. The notability of judges may be established per WP:POLITICIAN, but that does not appear to apply in this instance.

3. The notability for published authors may be established independently of WP:GNG. The applicable specific notability guidelines for authors fall under WP:AUTHOR, which generally covers creative professionals. WP:AUTHOR lays out various metrics to evaluate the notability of an author, specifically including:

(a) Is the subject "an important figure," or "widely cited by professional peers or successors?"

(b) Is the subject "a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications?"

(c) Is the subject "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?"

(d) Has the subject "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?" [does not seem to apply]

(e) Has the subject's "work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?" [does not seem to apply]

(f) Does the subject qualify under the related specific notability guideline for academic person per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)?

Notwithstanding the voluminous list of references cited in the article, the Wikipedia-defined notability of the subject attorney looks fairly marginal, and will require careful review of the references to determine the outcome of this AfD. This appears to be a relatively close call. I also note that the two "keep" votes to date appear to be a single-purpose account (SPA) whose only contribution to Wikipedia is his comment above, and a second account that appears to be the subject himself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Overwhelmingly most of the references in the article are not reliable sources for establishing notability. A search of several repositories shows that the subject has been mentioned in some newspaper and magazine articles, but only in passing references, usually in the context of promoting a speaking engagement or a webinar. I was not able to find any in depth coverage about the subject, so the article seems to fail WP:BIO in that the subject does not stand out from his peers in a significant, notable way. - MrX 22:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. The arguments for inclusion are not policy-based. Qworty (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having reviewed the references included within the article, I have not found sufficient depth of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, nor evidence to satisfy any of the various other criteria outlined in WP:AUTHOR (see above). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2013 (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.