Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be mostly for advertisement, and there is no notability established. Most references are not reliable nor secondary sources. Tek022 &#124; Comments?  07:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete looks overly promotional. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION.  Msnicki (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I have edited this article to remove any references that might be perceived as WP:PROMOTION. I am fairly new to creating articles and I would request that this article be classified as a 'newpage', as a common courtesy until I can do a better job of meeting guidelines. I am in the process of creating articles that link to the Duluth, Georgia page, in reference to the businesses in the local area. It will take me time to do so, but I think this will add to the value of that article. Aweart (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * At AfD, the only question is whether there are reliable independent secondary sources to establish the subject is notable. Although I and other editors often complain at AfD that an article appears to be promotional, that by itself is not a reason to delete.  At AfD, the expectation is that if the sources exist and the article is merely badly written, that can be fixed.  What can't be fixed by rewriting is a lack of sources.  Bottom line:  You can edit it all day long but if you can't find suitable sources, it won't matter. Msnicki (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I will keep that in mind and attempt to update this article with suitable sources and update this talk page when that is completed. Aweart (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not even necessary to update the article. If you can find suitable sources and merely identify them here, that will be sufficient.  The requirement for notability is that the sources must exist, not that they've been cited in the article.  Again, if the only problem is that the article is badly written, that can always be fixed.  Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Suitable sources to show the notability of "The Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates"
 * First source: - This secondary source shows physical location and proof of existence within a state entity.
 * Second Source: David Markiewicz, of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, refers to Gary and his law firm as prominent in the Atlanta area. David is an objective secondary source who specializes in Atlanta businesses for the Atlanta Journal Constitution and supports the notability of this subject.
 * Third Source: CNN Headline News features The Law Office's lead attorney Gary Martin Hays. CNN is a well known secondary source that supports the notability of this subject.
 * Fourth Source: The News Certified Exchange lists The Law Office's lead attorney Gary Martin Hays as an expert in Justice and Law. This 4th reference also lists 7 instances where the subject was interviewed by secondary sources supporting the notability of the subject.

Please advise on the suitability of these sources. Aweart (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The listing in the state bar only proves he really is a lawyer. If that's all it took, we'd have a page for every lawyer in the country.  The third and fourth are WP:PRIMARY, meaning the subject wrote them himself.  One has his byline on it, so there's no need to look further.  The other, the bio, is also pretty obviously something he wrote himself and we can confirm that by Googling to confirm that the same basic text also appears on his captive Keep Georgia Safe  and Gwinnett Gladiators  sites.  You can't make yourself notable just by writing about yourself.  The only one that might even possibly contribute to notability is the second item, the interview piece.  Interviews can sometimes contribute to notability but only to the extent they include the interviewer's analysis and thoughts.  Only that part can possibly be WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:SECONDARY.  The part that's merely a transcript of what the interviewee said or an uncritical dump of background info he's provided doesn't count.  In this article, the little bit of additional  biographical info in the lede, including the sunny endorsements, appear to have been supplied by the subject.  He's part owner of the Gwinnett Gladiators, so of course the general manager who works for him can be counted on to say something nice.  Similarly for the executive director of the Keep Georgia Safe organization he founded and runs; if she doesn't have something nice to say, it's probably time to dust off her resume.  None of this contributes to notability.  None of it.  Sorry.  Msnicki (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. As I do more research to try and attain good secondary sources for notability, I find myself looking at other pages. Are there any good examples of secondary source references on a page like this Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman? Also, just a question, if you are interviewed by many news sources (CNN, etc.), does not the fact that you are being interviewed for your expertise make you notable? I ask because I think I am confused on how decide what is notable or worthy of adding to Wikipedia. Aweart (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The American Lawyer article appears sufficient to establish notability of that article.  But even if you disagree and feel that article is really no better, take care to avoid comparisons to other pages. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good argument at AfD because that other page could also be nominated for deletion at any moment.  This is why I'd suggest reading the guidelines themselves, starting with WP:Notability.  Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes good sense, I will avoid comparing other articles in the future. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." What is the definition of "significant?" For the sake of the subject in question, it appears that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources:     Aweart (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What did I just say about interviews? You can't make yourself notable through your own speaking or your own writing.   All of that is WP:PRIMARY; it can be used in the article to document that you actually have said certain things but not to argue that we should have article in the first place.  That takes WP:Notability on Wikipedia, which has a more technical definition here than it does in casual conversation.  It's not enough that a subject seems worthy of note.  Other people not connected to the subject have to actually taken note and they have to have done it in WP:RELIABLE sources.  Different editors will interpret the guidelines slightly differently but my rule of thumb is that all it takes is a couple of 1000-word articles actually about the subject by WP:INDEPENDENT authors, offering their own WP:SECONDARY analysis or thoughts in a publication with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. Msnicki (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely understand that you can not be made notable through your own speaking. My point is that CNN, Fox, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and so on, would not have asked Mr. Hays to speak if he wasn't notable. The fact that they asked him to help them report news, based on his expertise, makes him notable. I assume they don't make it a habit to ask random, un-vetted people to give expert opinions on topics they report on. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." It is my contention that CNN, Fox, NBC, and The Atlanta Journal Constitution (reputable media sources) gave independent coverage to Mr. Hays because of his legal expertise on a multitude of topics, not merely a "short-term interest," and that shows his notability. The fact that he is being interviewed is not notable in and of itself. The fact that reputable sources are relying on Mr. Hays to help report the news makes the subject notable. If this line of reasoning holds no precedence, I will look for articles in a reputable publication that discuss the subject. Aweart (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "The fact that they asked him to help them report news, based on his expertise, makes him notable." No, it doesn't.  Period.  Why do lawyers and judges often hate pro se litigants?  It's because they waste time with arguments they'd know were wrong if they had spent time learning the rules.  If the subject was notable for those appearances, it would be because someone not connected with him or the show had taken note and written about them elsewhere.  Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that I am a pro se litigant and that you are a judge that hates me? I would appreciate it if you would avoid using personal attacks No personal attacks. In the meantime, I will look for articles in reputable print publications that discuss the subject. Aweart (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I should have found a better way to express myself.  I had been guessing or maybe hoping that if you were interested in an article about a law firm, that you might have some connection to the law.  I hoping to reach out to you.  I was hoping that if you were a lawyer yourself, if you'd worked in a law firm or if you'd ever had the frustrating experience of trying to argue something pro se, that we might share an ah-hah moment of communication, that AfDs are very guidelines-based discussions, a lot like courtrooms.  It's near impossible to win if you don't know the rules.  I had given you some links to the reading, but it hadn't seemed like you'd done much of it.  It's not really fair to expect other editors in an AfD to repeat here what's already there in the guidelines, so, sure, I was a little annoyed and not thinking so constructively as I should.  I allowed that to seep into my tone, that wasn't right, you have every right to be annoyed, and I owe you an apology.  I'm sorry.  Msnicki (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)