Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Chapman (Attorney)

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 Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Chapman (Attorney)

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

Unnotable lawyer who fails WP:GNG. Most of the references given either don't mention her or only mention her in passing. Nothing substantial about her found. Nthep (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and reads like a promo piece for business. This is not Martindale Hubbell. Kierzek (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, has not been involved in any cases that have shaped policy. Scant information can be found online. Winning local top 100 lawyers in a very small community isn't notable, nor is an Arvo rating.Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing I can find that is in-depth enough for WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This basically read like an add trying to get you to hire Chapman if you are accused of a crime. Unless of corse the "very familiar with prosecutors and judges" is meant to imply something downright scandalous, and then we have to delete it on BLP grounds, but I think in this case it was just an odd turn of phrase to increase the advertising potential of the page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt that simply any criminal lawyer out there is entitled to his/her own article based only on experience. No cases which have garnered significant attention and information about this person is scarce. Lacks notability. Reads very much like a self-promotional bit. KelseyWill (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominated for speedy deletion as the creation of sock of an indeffed user, Boskit190, almost certainly a PROMO and undisclosed paid piece. Hope this is proper procedure, if not you can chalk it up to IAR. Brianhe (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - experienced but NN attorney. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (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.