Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick A. Malone


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Absent of calls of deletion, I can pull the plug with this non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Patrick A. Malone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to be about a very ordinary lawyer, dressed up with references that make him look as if he is notable. He's written a couple of books, but that is not notable in itself. He's a member of some professional associations, but that is not inherently notable. All lawyers are members of professional associations.

One major issue is the mixture of the primary sources (many) and the items where the thing the reference purports to verify is simply not in the citation (very many). I've been through all the citations and flagged those that are most definitely inappropriate.

It appears to me that the gentleman is not sufficiently notable by WIkipedia's standards to merit an article just yet. He has decent achievements, just not notable ones.

In summary, this looks like resumé and an advert, though it does neither well, and it fails to pass our notability threshold. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is my first or second article. This is a notable attorney as notable attorneys go. I agree it was written more like a resume than and encyclopedia. I am attempting to learn how to write better for Wikipedia. I am going to make some edits with better citations. If you could assist I would appreciate it. In the U.S. Patrick Malone and other attorneys that are part of the inner circle of advocates are very well respected within their profession. Tallfromstpaul (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment [I'll help you on your talk page.] The article at present shows an attorney who is part of a community of ten-a-penny attorneys. The citations do not show what they purport to show, and many are primary sources. The Inner Circle of Advocates is a members on;y club of invited members, and the threshold for entry is not arduous. That organisation itself has very little coverage in reliable sources. Even if it proves to be notable, Whether the inner circle is notable or not, Malone must be independently notable anyway. We cannot cover him just because of his membership of a club. I'm sorry on a personal level to be proposing your first article for deletion. My sorrow does not affect my judgment, however. I see no notability for the gentleman. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is not just about an ordinary lawyer. This article is about Patrick Malone, one of the most notable trial lawyers practicing law today. I understand that you may not realize the notability of someone from across the ocean. He is by far on of the most notable plaintiff's attorneys in the United States. If you review trialguides, which is the publisher for plaintiff attorneys, he is not only the other of the top selling book, but he is also the author of the second top selling book regarding plaintiff trial law. I have updated the article, his notability doesn't come from the books he has written but comes from the cases he has won and the reputation he has developed within the legal community. He is looked upon as a resource by his peers and a teacher of best trial practices for trial attorneys.

I agree with you that all attorneys are members of associations and such, I have removed most of that information. I will note that the inner circle of advocates is actually a difficult group to be invited to, however I agree we should look at the notability of the individual. I have to disagree with your assessment of the sources, although some of them this is true and I have removed them. The new updated citations all include the information cited. I would say that it's difficult to write a biography for any attorney without it appearing like an advertisement. However, this is not the objective with this article. User:tallfromstpaul


 * Keep. He is not a "very ordinary" lawyer. He is quoted or mentioned in:
 * Washington Post in 1988; 1990; 1991; 1992, 2003; 2007
 * Washington Times in 1992 (on a $2.6 million settlement in one of his cases; this is also the topic of the 1992 Post article) and 2005
 * Baltimore Daily Record in 2009 about one of his cases
 * Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2010
 * USA Today in 1997
 * New York Times in 1989 and 1996
 * Member of the Inner Circle of Advocates is a big signal of notability - membership is limited to 100 people
 * His book was featured on the Today Show in 2009.
 * Wall Street Journal in 1998
 * St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1996
 * Santa Fe New Mexican in 2010 (entire article is about him and his book)
 * Akron Beacon Journal in 1997
 * Center for Justice & Democracy "The Pop Tort" blog in 2009 (entire blog post is about him and his book)
 * The Navy Times in 2008 (on $5 million case Malone won against the Air Force)
 * Wrote article published in 2000 in St. Anthony Messenger magazine
 * He is a blogger for the Huffington Post; has written five articles for them
 * I'm sure if I were to run it through a Lexis search, I'd get many more. These are just the ones I was able to find using Google. So no, he is not a "very ordinary lawyer." Neutralitytalk 09:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am happy to have been mistaken. I'm also happy that the article is starting to be well referenced. I am very happy to withdraw this nomination. I;d have done so earlier, but I was otherwise occupied. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (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.