Talk:Michael Sexton (lawyer)

Quadrant
@David Gerard hi there. I removed the Quadrant article. I see it is considered generally unreliable at the perennial source table. However per RSPUSE context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful sometimes, and I think this is one such case. Even though this source is not of high quality, it was only used to substantiate trivial information about his career, nothing contentious, controversial, or offensive. Merely his appointment to the bar and including the recount provided by the article subject in the interview about his initial office and book. You still see a need to have that citation challenge? Please let me know, and have a lovely day. MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky one. When we know a source is bad and unlikely to be a good idea on BLPs, it probably shouldn't stay. I'm keeping in mind here that it's not actually deprecated, just known-questionable. There's lots of true facts in bad sources. There should be somewhere else to get this one though. Could leave the claim with a cn, sure - David Gerard (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries @David Gerard. Tis no big deal, I'll just leave the info off unless I can cite it elsewhere. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)