559:
the question appears to be whether the subject--me--is notable enough for inclusion on
Knowledge. I leave that judgement to the community and only ask that my career be reviewed in its entirety and not a piecemeal fashion (legislator, attorney, educator, grassroots lobbyist, prosecutor, author, academic, speechwriter, etc.) as it is the uncommon breadth of experiences which make it notable. (I prefer not to engage in this debate, but by way of example, and it is just one brief example, few former criminal prosecuting attorneys after a 30 year career would spend a year studying American Indian Tribal Courts and Tribal Law and devote time to research the lessons society can learn from indigenous communities and link it to societal need for community healing following school shootings). If, after reviewing the merits of the article the community reaches the conclusion that the article requires more detail of notable accomplishment, or should be edited (as into a stub) or even deleted I shall gladly live with that conclusion.
745:- none of the accomplishments would seem to meet any of the criteria we use to determine notability. The achievements outlined above might be significant professional achievements but they are not enough to suggest that just holding such a position would result in the sort of significant coverage in reliable sources that we require (the substantive basis of specialist notability criteria). Ordinarily I would expect an experienced WP editor or two to step forward and offer to fix at least what can be fixed. But I imagine those offers haven't been forthcoming because of the dishonest sock-puppetry and the wiki-lawyering (or actual lawyering in this case) that has accompanied this article and AFD. Lesson to learn folks - Knowledge editors will help those who approach their dealings here with honesty and integrity.
663:
litigated matters, peer review and examination--in this case at the Yale Law School. In addition the subject has been selected as a Super Lawyer in
Criminal Defense in CT and for the New England region every year since 2007. This only happens after peer nomination and upon a vote of his peers. It cannot be bought. "Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations."
441:) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)He seems to meet many of the standards for an attorney (Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys) having been an editor of a law school journal, a legislator, handled a notable case, taught law. I think the page should be edited and not deleted. I am going to try to curtail some of the self promotional materials
554:
autobiographical article. The users who have participated in both discussions appear to have honorable community-minded intentions and to be unbiased. Although I wholly disagree with the conclusions reached regarding sockpuppetry, a user has been deleted and it is time to move on. As to
Professor McCluskey's
558:
conclusion that the case has been weakened for keeping the autobiographical article, nothing can be further from the truth. During this process the article has been edited and improved and the edits are wholly consistent with the comments and suggestions made on this page. When it comes down to it,
245:
which caution that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Examination of the content of the subject's documented activities indicate what looks like a standard career of a professional attorney. There seems no sign of
662:
Only 12 attorneys in the State of
Connecticut have achieved certification by the National Board of Legal Speciality Certification as Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialists. This national certification is only available after proof of proficiency in the criminal trial specialty, review of
553:
I have been silent to date throughout the entire deletion debate, silent during the review of what is referred to as sockpuppetry, or use of alternate accounts. During this period I went about the business of editing various articles which interest me, including making minor edits of the
538:
about using alternate accounts "for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position". EditorJohnny's support for keeping the article can be ignored and
Jamesdaviddiamond's use of a sockpuppet weakens the case for keeping his autobiography.
262:. However, he has only held local office and does not seem to meet the criterion of being a "Major local political figure"; rather he falls under the caution that "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability."
415:: expert in Indian (sic.) law, senior editor of a law school publication, city councilman, specialized admissions/certification, etc. The only reason that I'm holding back is that a lot of his accomplishments have been, to be blunt,
166:
693:
304:
364:
523:
470:
285:
As the guideline about autobiographies cautions, "People will write overly positive impressions of themselves." This article seems to suffer from such inflation of perceptions.
52:. Three relistings ought to be enough; and although the number of editors participating in the AfD has not been overwhelming, there seems to be a clear consensus for deletion.
694:
http://www.nblsc.us/index.php?section=find_board_certified_lawyers&category_id=2&state=CT&city=&zip=&first_name=&middle=&last_name=&search=%A0
384:
324:
160:
620:
as experience is as an adjunct faculty, with Ph.D. in process, with no publication or citations of note. Several times not much does not add up to much, let along enough.
119:
344:
235:
When one considers the question of notability, there are three categories to consider. The subject is an attorney, a political figure, and an educator.
126:
246:
any out of the ordinary distinctions that would make him a notable attorney; the reference to his designation as a “Connecticut
Superlawyer”
92:
87:
96:
457:
625:
79:
249:
links to what looks like a directory of attorneys deemed to be qualified in certain specialties, rather than a noteworthy attorney.
217:
276:
272:
224:, the subject of the article (the percentage becomes higher if we delete bot edits) and conversely, 128 of jamesdaviddiamond's
181:
17:
148:
197:
This article is troubling as it seems to be a promotional piece written by the subject, thereby violating the guidelines of
259:
621:
668:
564:
535:
206:
419:: assistant DA, lobbyist, adjunct professor, etc. If it is kept, I'd cut out the fluff, and stubify the article.
241:
There are no formal notability criteria for attorneys and similar professionals, and therefore he falls under the
225:
142:
776:
40:
648:
544:
486:
292:
757:
733:
672:
652:
629:
596:
568:
548:
514:
490:
461:
428:
396:
376:
356:
336:
316:
296:
61:
138:
202:
198:
640:
83:
664:
560:
531:
478:
453:
438:
408:
221:
772:
511:
188:
36:
75:
67:
445:
644:
555:
540:
482:
288:
174:
481:. There is currently a backlog in the sockpuppet investigations so this may take some time. --
527:
474:
449:
434:
424:
392:
372:
352:
332:
312:
154:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
771:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
747:
719:
577:
500:
617:
613:
416:
412:
57:
609:
592:
242:
229:
730:
420:
407:- individually, none of his accomplishments are that notable, but he seems to pass
388:
368:
348:
328:
308:
228:(i.e., 78%) were to his autobiographical article. This looks suspiciously like a
113:
213:
does not indicate any discussion of the submitted article before its approval.
722:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
616:
as has not held elected statewide position, for instance. Predictably, fails
580:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
503:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
53:
588:
704:
765:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
247:
643:
seems relevant, I'm copying it here without further comment (
305:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
365:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
612:, for instance no press coverage of note. Falls short of
210:
109:
105:
101:
173:
729:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
587:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
510:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
258:He has held public office, and so fits under the
220:indicates that 87% of the edits were made by the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
779:). No further edits should be made to this page.
385:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
325:list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions
209:under the Articles for creation process, but a
187:
8:
383:Note: This debate has been included in the
363:Note: This debate has been included in the
343:Note: This debate has been included in the
323:Note: This debate has been included in the
303:Note: This debate has been included in the
271:He has been an educator, and so fits under
382:
362:
342:
322:
302:
275:. Here, again, he falls far short of the
526:, mentioned above, has closed, blocking
473:has been initiated to determine whether
345:list of Law-related deletion discussions
686:
608:. Can't find any coverage to satisfy
260:Notability Guidelines for politicians
7:
705:http://www.superlawyers.com/about/
24:
639:Since this note on the article's
273:Knowledge:Notability (academics)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
205:It was properly submitted and
1:
243:general notability guidelines
218:contributions to the article
417:run of the mill for lawyers
796:
734:22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
673:01:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
653:03:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
630:14:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
597:04:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
569:14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
549:11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
515:00:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
491:16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
462:20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
429:19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
768:Please do not modify it.
758:07:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
524:Sockpuppet investigation
471:sockpuppet investigation
397:18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
377:18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
357:18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
337:18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
317:18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
297:16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
279:for academic notability.
62:13:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
622:Truth or consequences-2
532:User:Jamesdaviddiamond
479:User:Jamesdaviddiamond
230:Single Purpose Account
222:User:jamesdaviddiamond
530:as a sockpuppet of
469:Please note that a
736:
665:Jamesdaviddiamond
599:
561:Jamesdaviddiamond
528:User:EditorJohnny
517:
475:User:EditorJohnny
465:
448:comment added by
399:
379:
359:
339:
319:
216:A review of User
787:
770:
754:
752:
728:
724:
707:
702:
696:
691:
586:
582:
509:
505:
464:
442:
199:WP:Autobiography
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
76:James D. Diamond
68:James D. Diamond
48:The result was
34:
795:
794:
790:
789:
788:
786:
785:
784:
783:
777:deletion review
766:
750:
748:
717:
713:
712:
711:
710:
703:
699:
692:
688:
682:
575:
534:, who has been
498:
443:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
793:
791:
782:
781:
761:
760:
739:
738:
737:
726:
725:
714:
709:
708:
697:
685:
684:
683:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
657:
656:
645:SteveMcCluskey
633:
632:
602:
601:
600:
584:
583:
572:
556:SteveMcCluskey
541:SteveMcCluskey
520:
519:
518:
507:
506:
495:
494:
493:
483:SteveMcCluskey
477:is related to
432:
431:
401:
400:
380:
360:
340:
320:
289:SteveMcCluskey
283:
282:
281:
280:
266:
265:
264:
263:
253:
252:
251:
250:
203:self promotion
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
792:
780:
778:
774:
769:
763:
762:
759:
756:
755:
744:
741:
740:
735:
732:
727:
723:
721:
716:
715:
706:
701:
698:
695:
690:
687:
674:
670:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
603:
598:
594:
590:
585:
581:
579:
574:
573:
571:
570:
566:
562:
557:
551:
550:
546:
542:
537:
533:
529:
525:
516:
513:
508:
504:
502:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
440:
436:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:may standards
406:
403:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
214:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
767:
764:
746:
742:
718:
700:
689:
636:
605:
576:
552:
521:
512:NorthAmerica
499:
450:EditorJohnny
444:— Preceding
435:EditorJohnny
433:
404:
287:
284:
234:
215:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
161:free images
681:References
773:talk page
641:talk page
536:cautioned
405:Weak keep
389:• Gene93k
369:• Gene93k
349:• Gene93k
329:• Gene93k
309:• Gene93k
226:164 edits
37:talk page
775:or in a
720:Relisted
578:Relisted
501:Relisted
458:contribs
446:unsigned
277:criteria
207:approved
120:View log
39:or in a
731:Spartaz
637:Comment
618:WP:ACAD
614:WP:NPOL
421:Bearian
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
743:Delete
610:WP:GNG
606:Delete
413:barely
211:search
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
753:lwart
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
669:talk
649:talk
626:talk
593:talk
565:talk
545:talk
522:The
487:talk
454:talk
439:talk
425:talk
393:talk
373:talk
353:talk
333:talk
313:talk
293:talk
201:and
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
54:Deor
589:Mz7
189:TWL
118:– (
749:St
671:)
655:):
651:)
628:)
595:)
567:)
547:)
539:--
489:)
460:)
456:•
427:)
411:,
395:)
387:.
375:)
367:.
355:)
347:.
335:)
327:.
315:)
307:.
295:)
232:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
751:★
667:(
647:(
624:(
591:(
563:(
543:(
485:(
452:(
437:(
423:(
391:(
371:(
351:(
331:(
311:(
291:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.