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 keep. One of the weaker keeps I've closed lately, due to low participation. A couple of paragraphs being called "significant coverage" is certainly debatable. However, as no one opined to delete (other than the nom), it has been relisted twice, keep is where we find ourselves. Dennis - 2¢ 14:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Jim Parkman

Jim Parkman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I am uncertain if what is here indicates notability, but I see no easy way to decide. The key question is whether coverage of the trials also give him substantial coverage, which is a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep as New York Times and other major news source coverage just edges this over the verifiability and notability thresholds. Not the most notable of subjects but perhaps just notable enough. - Dravecky ( talk) 05:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Okay, a lengthy rationale starts from here,

Notability is generally determined the significant coverage of subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO). In present case, Parkman appears to has been written about /as a lawyer with his comments/ on average in two paragraphs in multiple reliable sources as such NYT and LA Times. This basically fulfills the significant coverage in multiple rs criteria and justifies inclusion of subject on Wikipedia.

//I'm aware of the concerns raised in afd rationale, as he only appears to come into some other person news (as attorney), and doesn't really have any coverage on his own. As such in this NYT source, where title is "In Birmingham, Richard Scrushy Is a Local Story", another NYT, where title is "Closing Arguments Wind Up at Scrushy Trial", and Parkman is mentioned couple of time with his comments. There are many similar ones in present article. So, trials involving high-profile entities that received continuous significant attention of multiple reliable media, did really make the attorney notable who appeared in there with his comments throughout the span of trial cases? As a Wikipedia article is supposed to be based on secondary, independent and reliable sources, we may end up writing an article on Parkman using these sources as a 'commentary of Parkman', he said this, that, etc. But it is not entirely true, there are many more sources that does discuss Parkman in particular and perhaps has not taken into consideration while nominating the article for deletion as they are not presently cited in the article (or say, not normally available on Google search).//

One of them, I've found on HighBeam that does discuss Parkman in particular (-a lawyer who is him and he who is a lawyer). "Parkman Requests Chief Remain Free". Science Letter. NewsRX. 6 October 2009. The article is all about Parkman. I'll quote first two paragraphs from the article here,

Jim Parkman, an attorney with The Cochran Firm, recently hired to represent former Lumberton, Mississippi chief of police Maurice Hammond in his fight to overturn his Federal convictions for FEMA fraud, has asked United States District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. to allow Hammond to remain free while Hammond's appeal is pending (see also The Cochran Firm - Birmingham Criminal Defense).
"We anticipate filing an appeal within the next couple of months. We have identified at least seven issues for which we will request relief from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. With the appeal process potentially taking up to a year and a half, we feel it would be appropriate for Mr. Hammond to be allowed to remain free to allow the appeals process run its' course," offered Parkman.

//However, it is undeniable that he is mostly notable for being an attorney in the 'Scrushy trial' case. There are at least 50 reliable sources that does discuss Parkman in relation to this case (If asked, I'd list them here). It doesn't make the subject qualify BLP1E as he has been an attorney in many other trials as well that were discussed in detail with frequent mention of Parkman in multiple reliable media.//

My answer to the key question asked in afd rationale is, Yes -Parkman did received significant coverage thorough out the span of trials as much that he satisfies the Wikipedia notability standard and merits a Wikipedia article. Therefore, I'd like to !vote keep here. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 10:35, 31 October 2014 (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.