Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Simmons (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 delete. But an article about his law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP, if that is deemed notable, can be created. Sandstein 13:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Simmons (attorney) (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)

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Looks like some US-based policitical point-scoring. Appears to be about a Democrat lawyer that made political donations, contains several heresay accusations such as "Connections former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver" and a listing of his "personal contributions". Article created by an editor that I suspect (based on the articles they've created) is working an agenda on Wikipedia. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose to article on the firm. If it is the largest mass tort claims firm, it should have an article. There is some material that obviously must be removed-, such as the campaign contributions section, which is overemphasis. Silver's conviction was overturned, but he was re-convicted upon retrial, so that material should remain, though it needs less emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the comment DGG. There is nothing to support the claim that the lawfirm "Simmons Hanly Conroy" is the "largest mass tort claims firm". In this PR release from the firm, they merely describe themselves as one of the nation's largest law firms focused on consumer protection and mass tort actions and Simmons Hanly Conroy is one of the nation's largest mass tort law firms. I am unsure if the award is notable either although it is mentioned in other articles on lawfirms such as Fish & Richardson and Cooley LLP. In any case, if the lawfirm is notable, I really don't see how much of the material in this article will be included as the focus will be on the lawfirm. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Also, the campaign contribution section is wholly unreliable, not to mention completely misleading in the way it is presented in this article. The reference doesn't attribute the contributions specifically to Simmons but to his firm in general. The "source" is from the Madison Record, an affiliate to the Institute for Legal Reform (another article edited by Powerhouse) which is a lobbying organization, which in turn attributes the data to opensecrets.com (doesn't exist). Another website, opensecrets.org does exist but doesn't contain the information reported. Similarly, the Sheldon Silver "connection" is incorrectly reported and is stating one argument put forward in a law case as fact, which appear to have been denied, and nothing has been reported as findings of fact in the trial. For example, nowhere does it say "John Simmons gave money to Dr. Robert Taub's clinic". In my opinion, this entire article is libellous and unsupported by sources. I will remove those parts immediately. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there's a problem, btw, with all the articles mentioning Silver. Originally, of course, they said he was convicted; then they were, correctly, changed to say that his appeal was granted (which meant that it should have been removed from some of the articles about other people just connected with him. (the appeal was granted because the Supreme Court changed the law in the interim and the judge's charge had not met the new standard). Some of the articles are still in that state. But he has since been re-convicted on the same charges. (he has of course appealed also). I will review them all today or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, wow, that's complicated! So Silver was convicted, appealed, and lost the appeal? Or was convicted, had the conviction overturned, and re-convicted on the same or similar charges? Just bear in mind though that Silver is not Simmons. What exactly is the connection between the Silver case and Simmons anyway and why is it notable? No charges were ever brought against Simmons as far as I can see and in my opinion this article was potentially libelous with clear untruths and false assertions, making it appear that Simmons was guilty of wrong doing. The reference the article relied on is also dubious. Most of the articles appear to be either political point scoring or tabloid-like smear campaigns. I have been unable to find anything in the mainstream press on this incident with the same reporting and tying John Simmons, the person and attorney, to Silver in any direct way. It is also worth noting that Silver was a member of Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. and there's not a lot said in that article about this incident and no mention of Simmons. It is clear to my mind that the creator of this article, user:Michael Powerhouse, is grinding his own political axe and has created some terrible, biased, one-sided and potentially libelous articles that appear to have gone largely undetected for years. Having now cleaned up the content, I am of the opinion that the article should be deleted as he fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The present article is greatly sanitized. For the connections , see the version at [1]; they are indeed indirect. Simmon's law firm (and Weitz's) were among those heavily involved in a very extensive controversial series of lawsuits on behalf of those claiming to be asbestos victims. Silver was involved with receiving payments from one of the physicians centrally involved in certifying the basis for the claims, and these payments were one of the charges against him. Silver was convicted on this and other charges, appealed, & won the appeal on the basis of an incorrect jury instruction. He was then retried, with the right jury instruction, and convicted on the same charges . He has again appealed. As Silver has been for years one of the most important NYS politicians, there are extensive reliable sources for all the matters involving Silver in any way; the lawsuits involve billions of dollars, and there's extensive NYT coverage of the lawsuits & the firms and people involved. I re-read many of these sources last night, rather than rely on my memory, or on our articles. Some complication is unavoidable: both Silver's affairs and the asbestos lawsuits are complicated.

Given the conviction, the material is not libelous. (we normally treat a conviction which is in the process of being appealed as a conviction). Even without the conviction, the people involved are public figures, the charges are related to their public role, and excellent sourcing is available. The problem is rather lack of proportion.

The desire to write a series of articles on everything involved in either the lawsuits or Silver is the reason for this article. There is very clearly some bias involved in wanting such articles, but there is bias involved in trying to suppress coverage of them in WP. I think there should be an article on this person and his firm--they are difficult to separate, and it should indeed mention the lawsuits. It's only part of his/their activities though, and I don't think necessary to include much about Silver in the article. I would still say, Repurpose and rewrite properly, rather than delete . DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. I was to pick you up on a couple of points that I believe are crucially important. You say "the material is not libelous". I disagree. I am not looking at libelous content in relation to Silver but in relation to Simmons (two different people). Part of the issue is because you also say "I think there should be an article on this person and his firm--they are difficult to separate". From a legal standpoint, this is where any accusation of "libel" may start. The firm and the person are totally separate and must be treated separately as the are separate legal entities with separate legal identities. Because of this, you cannot attribute actions by the person to the firm or (as in this case) attribute actions by the firm to the person. That is the route to libel. So when this article states "John Simmons gave money to Dr. Taub's clinic" and the (unreliable) source says that "Simmons Mesothelioma Foundation gave $2,519,000 to Taub’s employer, Columbia University", that is clearly libelous. There are numerous other examples.

You also say "The desire to write a series of articles on everything involved in either the lawsuits or Silver is the reason for this article" and that does not bear up to scrutiny for two reasons. The first reason is that a cursory look at other "connected" articles does not even mention Simmons. There is nothing at all in the Sheldon Silver article. There is nothing at all in the Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. article. In fact, this article wasn't linked to any other article. The second reason is that the "Campaign contributions" have nothing to do with the Silver case. For me, it is clear that the motivation for creating this article was malicious, with the intent to harm Simmon's reputation. There is nothing even-handed, fair or unbiased in the content or reporting, and it fails WP:NPOV terribly. There should be somewhere to urgently report potentially harmful and libelous content other than AfD.

I understand you believe that Simmons is notable and the lawfirm is notable. Having looked for sources, I don't think Simmons is notable in his own right. I also don't believe we'll find sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability (but I also accept your position on how notability should be examined). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like it was originally created basically as an WP:ATTACK page. After fixing that, there's not much left, and I'm not seeing WP:GNG here. The law firm may be notable, but that can be created separately as there's no content here worth saving. Marquardtika (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lawyer vs. law firm issue is something for which we need a general discussion. For some firms, doing corporate business, the firm itself is the most notable. For other firms, often like this one, those doing personal injury or criminal business, the founding or other principal attorney is essentially the law firm--its reputation depends on him as a litigator, and the others essentially support him. In a case, like here, we probably need only one article, but it isn't clear where. (There's the same problem with other enterprises where one person is by far predominant)

I do not think it clear that the motive was malicious with respect to Simmons in particular. The editing pattern shows similar focus on others, and in a variety of directions. Not all of it is in current versions. It does seem to show a certain amount of general negativity. The place to discuss such matters is the BLP noticeboard, when the target is a person, or the NPOV noticeboard. I do not normally join in these discussions, because I have found it very difficult to judge motive. We're dealing here with this article, not the editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:BIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2018 (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.