Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Platt

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Platt

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

(I tagged this as a speedy, but it was declined with the incredibly vague summary "indicates significance". I fail to see the assertion of notability.) The subject of this article is an attorney in Coupeville, Washington, who has been mentioned in passing in several articles in the local newspapers (the Whidbey News-Times, the Whidbey Examiner and the South Whidbey Record are all owned by the same company, Sound Publishing); none of them mention him other than in passing (as an attorney representing a client in a court case). He garners a pair of mentions in the Seattle Times--one in which he is quoted fairly extensively as the attorney who represented a client who was acquitted (note that there is nothing in that article about him, only his client), and the other article contains only a passing mention of him with a single-sentence quote. The remaining link is a link to Avvo, which is essentially a spam link in the context in which it is used in this article. There is a lot of noise when searching for this individual, but outside of a few (additional) mentions of cases in the local newspapers in which he is defending a client, and sites discussing his failed bid for a county judge position, there is nothing to be found about him. He does not meet the notability guidelines. Horologium (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The decline was correct, IMO. There are claims to significance enough to pass A7. AfD, however is a different matter. CSD is a time saving quick check for the obvious - this is a deeper investigation with a higher lever of notability required. Being a lawyer is not per se notable, not is having an office in Seattle. Having an office in Coupville might be more unusual, given a population of 1723 (in 2000) - but the island has 58,000 people on it. That's more than Saipan has. I agree about the references. If nothing better is available than (for example) an article about an incident involving a death where the only mention of Mr Platt is a quote of a few words, or a professional profile, the article should go. I am not saying that Mr Platt isn't notable - I am saying that the article does not prove any notability by Wikipedia's definitions. Peridon (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the promotional aspect - "Platt is revered as an aggressive and passionate" is a little over the top, and suggests a close connection between the poster and the subject. Peridon (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peridon. GregJackP Boomer! 14:59, 14 August 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.