Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Adler


 * 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.  A  Train talk 07:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim Adler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lawyer known mainly for his advertisements, but it seems that all the comment on them is local. Any most of it looks very much like advertorials or PR-based. Article written by declared paid editor. My own view is that anyone who proposes to edit for money should at the very least knowhow to write better articles than this, and we should be relative strict in applying the notability and promotionalism standards.  DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My affiliation to the article has been clearly stated. I would like to remind the editors that Jim Adler is a prominent lawyer since 1967 and has been mentioned at the The New York Times back in 1993 (that is 24 years ago). He is mentioned not only for his advertising, but also as one of the leading personal injury experts. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT is, as you say, a mention. It's in  a 2 page article about a general matter, "Texas Lawyers to Vote on How Far Their Ads Can Go", which quotes one of his ads, among many other ads from other lawyers, and then says " Mr. Adler ... declined to speak with a reporter. "    This is exactly the sort of mention that is not a substantial source for anything.  (and the article in fact says that a different one of the lawyers, not he, is the one with the "inescapable advertisements). As for being a  "prominent lawyer", that's much less than notability. What would be sufficient for notability is  if he wins a major prize at a national level, or is elected head of the state bar.  If he accomplishes these, he won't have to pay someone to write an article. The   most inexcusable sort of paid article here is is about people asserted to be known mainly for advertising, because its so blatantly just another advertisement,   DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So even being parodied in the animated TV series, Beavis and Butt-Head, which aired on MTV isn't worth mentioning? Search here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Beavis_and_Butt-Head_characters

 mrbrianspencer ( talk ) 04:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, even that is not enough to make him notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject seems to be known only for his advertising campaign, of which this article is clearly part. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There just isn't sufficient coverage that discusses the subject directly. Apart from a few trivial mentions, we have some local coverage of the marketing activities. He falls short of our standards for biographical notability. Rentier (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable local ambulance chaser.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From your writing tone, it sounds like you have something against personal injury lawyers (by referencing the derogatory slang term, "ambulance chaser"). 12:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * *Keep 1) He is mentioned at the local press not only for his advertising but also as a leading personal injury expert: examples are 4 reports (first, second, third, fourth) at KPRC-TV (TV station) and “Texas Monthly” magazine. 2) He was included into the list “The 500 Most Famous Dallasites, Dead or Alive". 3) He has been parodied in several episodes of Beavis and Butt-Head and Extract” (2009) movie - both have national scale. 4) He serves as a lawyer since 1967 (that is 50 years). 5) There are 476 entries for Texas lawyers on Wikipedia, most of them far less notable than Jim Adler. Should we also delete 400 of them? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should probably delete many of them, but this discussion is about Jim Adler, not the other 475. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the sources that you claim to show that he is a leading personal injury expert actually say anything about him being "leading" or an "expert". They simply have a few words each saying that he is a personal injury lawyer followed by quotes from him. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true. First link reads "Attorney Jim Adler has been specializing in automotive and trucking accident cases for 47 years and said Houston is a hotbed for red-light runners". By the way, do you mind to reveal you profile and not hide behind the IP address? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That quote follows my description above exactly, so how is it evidence that what I said is not true? Where does it say that he is a leading expert? It says nothing other than that he is an attorney specializing in a particular type of case, as nearly all attorneys do. And I only ever edit revealing my IP address rather than hiding behind a pseudonym. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete POV, COI, limited notabilty. What's not to like?  Anmccaff (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: From a sample of 20 of other 475 texas lawyers, 14 have held elected positions that give a presumption of notability, 2 have held other major political positions including judgeships, and 2 have become notable from other professions (1 businessman,1 professional athlete)  That gives about 10% who were notable only as lawyers--some will have been presidents of the state bar, which has been considered to imply notability, so there are about 30 or so in the group who might merit consideration at AfD.   DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can only find one article focused on him specifically - the Dallas Business Journal article. It's not enough and so I agree that this fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:30, 3 October 2017 (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.