Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Ozols


 * 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. ansh 666 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Ozols

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited. He is a successful lawyer who has appeared on television to give his opinion, but this alone does not make him notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Magnolia677


 * I'm the original author of the Alex Ozols Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Ozols. I got your notification that you'd like to begin the process of deleting the article. I went to Wiki's list of American Lawyers and saw a ton of lawyers on there with similar pages, and in a lot of instances less public notability, so I'm a bit confused? I really want to contribute to Wiki and I enjoy it a lot (it's hard to contribute new information, but I'm trying every couple of days), but it's a little dissuading when a long article you worked on is scheduled for deletion. I did read your note saying that Alex Ozols is successful, but not notable, which is where I'm having the confusion. In my eyes, many people are successful and don't warrant Wiki pages, because they're not in the public realm, they're just rich or innovative people in private sectors. Conversely, Alex Ozols is in the public a lot in California and on national news media. Aside from being on TV, he's been involved some historical cases with regards to records being set and their high-profile nature. I thought my sources for Alex were objective and large, so I don't think that's the problem. Is it solely because he's not a household name? I'd love to work with you on this augment the page with your guidance so I can learn how to properly contribute full articles. This isn't a fly by night thing for me, I enjoy this, but I did a lot if citation-research and what not for the page, so I'd love to find a way to appease your (and Wiki's) preferences.


 * As an aside, there are a lot of articles like this one on Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Lawyer) that have been up for years with warnings or requests to enhance. Why are they allowed to stay published for so long, but my more thought out and thorough contribution isn't? I really wish we could IM or something so I could understand this whole process. lol. Sorry for being so needy.


 * I accidentally added this to your personal talk page first. I think it was suppose to be here? Thanks!
 * IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep As a student from San Diego trying to get into wikipedia I thought I would start with some additions to a lawyer here in San Diego that everyone knows. I have never met Alex Ozols but I have heard about him and see him very frequently on local TV. I made some additions today and then saw that this page is now up for deletion. I looked at WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO and it seems that this would not fail either or those. When looking at the footnotes it says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". This is an individual that has not just posted their own biography but instead has been notated in the media about cases that they personally handled. They are not cases that Alex Ozols commented on but instead are cases that he was the one handling which means the story is about his representation.


 * The footnotes say that: "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Again, not self published links but news outlets, magazines, and national news coverage.


 * In regards to the comment "There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited". There is a citation from the University of British Columbia, an extremely prestigious school, talking about him as a notable alumni. I also found an article from Thomas Jefferson School of Law describing his accomplishments as a notable alumni, which is a third party source acknowledging he went there, which I will add to the citations. I also found articles from Attorney Journal Magazine, featuring him and talking about his biographical background.


 * I respect your notations but wanted to make a quick comment about the television. This is an individual with tons of media coverage that is a very notable figure in San Diego and throughout the US. Although the guidelines say that IMDB does not fully establish notability, this is someone who does have an IMDB page and it does not even list the local news credits we see here in San Diego. The television networks that create our media each and every day look to Alex Ozols to provide comment, which is an endorsement. Media is not always in print these days, we also need to consider the media that is digital as well.


 * If you were doing this trying to make the page better than that is understandable but after about 60 minutes of research I can find at least 50 lawyers with pages that have a lot less notoriety than Alex Ozols.


 * I don't know much about wikipedia but I hope this is the right place to post my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiadreamin87 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete ; not a lawyer and not from San Francisco, but the article as it exists is a description of a person doing the job educated for. Regardless of outcome, see no value for descriptions of individual cases. I mean, really, a dog custody case? David notMD (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Specifics about the dog case aside, Alex Ozols is on TV regularly as a commentator, contributor, and legal analyst across national TV media and all his citations are legitimate national newspapers. I perused this list of American media commentators that have passed Wiki's standards, and I see many that are equal to Alex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_political_commentators As I mentioned to the original reviewer, I also did this with American lawyers and he is equal to many of those listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_lawyers I am happy to augment my article, but I want to learn how to contribute properly so I can continue to use Wiki in a manner that adds content to the site. Just saying "he's not popular enough in my eyes" but then allowing equal pages to exist, helps no one, as it doesn't explain what is allowed and not. There cannot be a double-standard allowed on this site, like so many other sites allow. If you're allowing all of these examples to remain without concern, explain to me how Alex is different. This is an education moment for you; take it. Tell me how to make it better and I will try to edit it to your liking. Thank you!IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The existence of other articles (bios of other lawyers) is not sufficient argument for not deleting an article. There are many, many existing articles in Wikipedia about people who do not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. The decision to retain or delete this article on Ozols will rest on its own merits. The nature of many of the citations (YouTube clips, interviews, IMBd...) are weak. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason why he is not notable, he is a regular commentator and considered an expert by wide variety of various news outlets, and the article contains sources such as  that clearly contradict the nom's assertions that "There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited". —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited article's a quite clearly promotional piece of text, unworthy of inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Every television market in America has a lawyer that saturates the airwaves with ads and will provide comment about law issues to any station if needed. This looks like San Diego's version of Cellino & Barnes; sources, indeed, but media saturation doesn't equal meeting WP:N. We've also got WP:RESUME issues here with 'lawyer helps litigant get case dismissed' cases.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a promotional resume for an attorney, based on his own promotional efforts. The utter lack of notability is shown by the utter insignificance of the cases discussed. Personally, as advertising goes, this is pretty feeble, but that's clearly what the article sets out to do. But one of the other comments above is right--there are tens of thousand almost equally promotional  articles for non-notable people, including several hundred lawyers. It will take us a while to get rid of all of them, but at the very least we shouldn't be adding to them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this blatantly promotional, possibly advertising text, per nomination, as lacking verifiable evidence of notability. And the argument  "There's other similar stuff on Wikipedia" is null and void. It simply means more work for us. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.