Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul BW Chaplin

: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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Paul BW Chaplin]]=

:{{la|Paul BW Chaplin}} ([{{fullurl:Paul BW Chaplin|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul BW Chaplin}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Three prongs suggested for notability here; being a lawyer, authorship of legal textbooks, and media career. With regard to the first, there is no source to suggest that subject has become notable for any of his causes (or effects); as for the second, the only evidence is that his books are on sale; as regards the third, the only source would appear to be promotional. To paraphrase a famous judgement; "There are three points in the appeal, and there is nothing in any of them; thrice nothing is still nothing". Rodhullandemu 02:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - the article seems to be autobiography: that is not in itself grounds for deletion, but it makes one look more carefully at the claims of notability, to be sure that WP is not being used for self-promotion. There are two references to Amazon entries for books he has written, and a link to the website of his TV show. The only secondary sources are three "external links" which all refer to the same fraud case, in which he was found not to have been dishonest. I don't see the substantial independent secondary coverage required by WP:BIO. JohnCD (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Autobiographical concerns have been addressed by editing. The subject meets the threshold for notability. In addition to his notariety, Chaplin has authored two text books, one of which was published by Butterworths.Esasus (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I Googled the name and one of the first results was involving him in a case of fraud.Paul Baxendale-Walker He was mentioned by the BBC,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4763984.stm, sued over his showhttp://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/08/31/2901683.htm, and got suspended.http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/high-court-backs-sdt-verdicts It's weak because it centers around one event, but as long as these things are mentioned we might as well keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring12 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Not one event, because it wouldnt have been worth the news comments in the first place had he not been a well known lawyer. For a specialist in commercial law to be disbarred for running a notorious tax avoidance scheme is notable. DGG (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep mostly due to having a book published by a real publisher and having a TV show with notable guests. This is a very borderline case by any measure and could easily go either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete There's only one event in his life that's a bit notable and I'm not convinced it's enough to have an entire article dedicated to him. Also the article is unlikely to be expanded, except maybe by Chaplin himself, because of WP:HOLE. Laurent (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2009 (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.