Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Michael Garner

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. slakr^\ talk / 05:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W. Michael Garner

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

promotional article for not particularly notable attorney, liting all his cases and speeches. The listings as best lawyers, etc., are the only possible sources for notability , and are not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a leading authority in the field of franchise law, the article on attorney W. Michael Garner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to its policies and guidelines. In addition to writing an authoritative three-volume legal treatise on franchise law, Garner has edited the American Bar Association's franchise law journal and franchise desk book. The Wikipedia article includes ISBN references and 20 links to reliable sources. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 February 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are sources, but they don't establish the subject's notability. Court cases do not prove the notability of the attorneys arguing them. I could probably buy a spot a "best lawyers" list, and I'm not a lawyer. The closest we get to notability is "his writings" being cited in a U.S. Supreme Court case. That could go toward establishing the writings' notability, but not his. And I can't find any sources online that do establish notability. Lagrange 613 04:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. As its author, I apologize for not including more sources. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate any suggestions you may have for improving the article so it complies with Wikipedia's standards. I'm in the process of finding reliable third-party sources for W. Michael Garner's most important cases. As soon as I have the citations, I will add them to the article. In the meantime, I can assure you that it is not possible to buy a spot in the "Best Lawyers in America," the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Best Lawyers in America seems to have higher standards than other lists I've seen. But just because they claim to be "the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession" doesn't make it so. It seems comparable to Who's Who. Certainly not all or even most of its 50,000+ lawyers are notable. Lagrange 613 17:00, 2 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to satisfy Wikipedia standards regarding citations to reliable third-party sources, I added links to court decisions that have cited W. Michael Garner's writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to adding links to numerous court decisions that have cited W. Michael Garner's writings, I have added links to key court decisions throughout the attorney's career. The article now includes reliable sources to support W. Michael Garner's standing as a leading authority in the field of franchise law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNwriter55408 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Court decisions/records are unacceptable sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents are primary sources when the topic of the article is at issue in the case before the court. Here, court orders cite Garner's law journal articles to support points about cases that don't involve Garner. That makes them secondary sources; the journal articles are primary. But I still don't think it's enough to prove notability. Maybe if the cases were higher-impact, or if the orders' reasoning really turned on something Garner had written, but they aren't and they don't. If a few minor references to your journal articles established notability, WP:PROF would look very different. Lagrange 613 16:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the numerous citations on the page meet the requirements of WP:BIO, which requires person be subject of secondary sources (not quoted or something along those lines). Article sounds like WP:PROMO and likely some sort of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also, as MNWriter is a WP:SPA that has written this article almost entirely by him/herself, there is a WP:COI in voting here. The additional citations act only as a WP:MASK. mikeman67 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 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.