Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles "Trip" Dorkey III


 * 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. The case for 'keep' did not demonstrate notability in the responses to their !vote. If article creator believes they can ultimately find sources that clearly demonstrate notability, I can restore this to the user sandbox upon request. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Charles "Trip" Dorkey III

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A WP:MILL lawyer with a heavily-promotional article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator; reads like a narrative resume, and even though there are a number of sources, the article itself is not well-sourced; the only articles about him are primary sources, no newspaper article is directly about him. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not know Mr. Dorkey and I have never spoken with him and am writing the article because I am interested in and read about the legal profession; the article reflects research and references that indicate that Dorkey stands out in the world of “Big Law” that is filled with narrow specialists and as a Renaissance lawyer with numerous highly reported matters across many legal disciplines (unlike a run of the mill fungible name in his profession). His notability comes from a unique long-term mix of legal practice, law firm management, active participation in politics (a controversial issue reported in the article), public service appointments, and civic leadership (multiple footnotes in the 31 footnotes applied and the 4 added ones).


 * Dorkey‘s substantive adaptability to changing legal environments and a management role includes the executive committee at Haythe and Curley and head of the U.S. practice and managing partner of the NY office for Torys. (I have added footnotes in Dorkey’s legal experience to document, from articles).


 * Sourcing-- I have added two footnotes that relate to newspaper feature stories about Dorkey; in the New York Sun and in Canada’s Globe and Mail and a total of four new footnotes that I believe respond to constructive criticism of originally unincluded items. Dorkey’s highly reported cases appear with verified Lexis citations in his bio page at Dentons and LinkedIn and he has attracted and responded to reporters from the New York Times, several times (as per my footnotes).


 * I would appreciate any advice/suggestions as to whether the article would be improved by removal of any footnotes for lack of special or needed substance. Would footnotes 11. 19. 21, 25, 31 warrant such consideration? Ildar2013 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically you would never need to remove footnotes to improve an article: the issue with this article is, even though there are a lot of sources, none of the sources show he's anything more than a partner in a large law firm, which doesn't make him notable. The "Who's Who" guides listed prominently at the start of the article in my mind don't make someone notable; while they're great for marketing successful attorneys, being listed there doesn't make someone pass WP:GNG. The Globe and Mail article mentions him but isn't about him. The New York Sun article is the best source, probably, but is more of a general interest interview than demonstrating notability. This article reads to me like he's nothing more than a good attorney who has done what good attorneys do for over 40 years. SportingFlyer  talk  22:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarification on footnotes. Perhaps you are unaware that US News and Best Lawyers in America,  also referenced in first paragraph is the peer reviewed directory that is generally accepted in the legal profession to include the top 5% of lawyers in the country and I include a reference to that point. The other point that I believe needs to be taken into account is  that the long term mix of high level political and public service while maintaining full legal practice is extremely rare. Finally I think there is a more generous and reasonable way to interpret the value of the article in the Globe and Mail; it focuses directly on Dorkey’s forward thinking attitude about lawyer coaching. Ildar2013 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm very aware of both US News and Best Lawyers in America and they do not suffice to provide notability for Wikipedia, as any reference to him would be trivial within these articles for WP purposes. In the absence of other sources, Globe and Mail article needs to be about Dorkey. SportingFlyer  talk  19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the article has a lot of fluffy sources but nothing of substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 3 March 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.