Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lerner (second nomination)


 * 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 d e lete. Concerns about notability and the quality of sourcing were not met. east. 718 at 08:33, December 22, 2007

Paul Lerner
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and no reliable sources.


 * Delete  Does not meet WP:BIO.  Article does not cite significant WP:RS.  The two listed sources for biographical material are the "about the author" section from the two books that the subject has co-authored.  Other links cited are:


 * 1) the self published websites for the subject's own company
 * 2) promotional blurbs from the book publisher's website (Wiley and Sons)
 * 3) a link showing the book was translated into the co-author Poltorak's native Russian
 * 4) a link to a non-critical "review" (essentially a factual summary of the contents) of the subject's book, published in a biannual law school electronic magazine
 * 5) a transcript, published on the subject's company website, of a 5-question interview by the Wall Street Reporter, which appears to be essentially a paid-PR website of "interviews" with corporate CEOs that does not meet WP:RS.  Questions include "Silverstein: How do you plan to handle the rapid growth in the industry?" and "Silverstein: That's terrific. How can our audience find out more about your company?"
 * 6) link to a set of powerpoint slides from a presentation by the author

In all, the article presents the subject as the secondary co-author of two books and four articles (linked to from the primary author Poltorak's web site), none of which are the subject of any independent critical reviews. It also tries to promote the subject as having argued a case in the CAFC that was cited in a single sentence in the MPEP, a publication thousands of pages long. Other biographical and career info does not distinguish the subject as deserving of an independent Wikipedia article -- just and an attorney, adjunct professor, and executive of a firm of unknown size.

This article has been fluffed up in an attempt to make the author appear notable, but on closer inspection this person does not meet WP:BIO and the article is not supported with reliable sources.

Emcee (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to me there has been plenty of time for evidence of independent coverage to be added to the article. I don't see evidence of sufficient notability here. Being a lawyer doesn't make him notable. Co-authoring a book doesn't make him notable. There are millions of people in the world in professional positions and millions who have written, or co-written publications. That can't be enough for an encyclopedia. If significant independent coverage could be added, that would make a difference.--Michig (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER   94  18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Emcee. Non-notable enough to have an article. --Edcolins (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I added an interview with CNNfn which together with the rest should suffice for WP:BIO. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, don't think so. A very short appearance as a talking head on a now-defunct cable financial news channel does not cut it.  The news coverage needs to be about the SUBJECT of this Wikipedia article -- in other words, Paul Lerner -- not Paul Lerner's 30 seconds of fame talking to a layman reporter on the topic of the rudimentary basics of obtaining a patent.  If there were any reliable sources on Paul Lerner with any substance, I'm sure you would have provided it by now.  Emcee (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Standard disclosure for AfD: PinchasC is the creator and primary contributor of this article. Emcee (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless evidence of notability crops up. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per previous AfD. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete But perhaps add a bit more about this person in General Patent Corporation International. The company is reasonably notable, but this employee does not seem to be.  --John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Be wary in your assessment of the notability of GPCI based on its Wikipedia article -- this one is also created and almost entirely written by the same (single) author, PinchasC, and appears to rely heavily on self-published or otherwise unreliable sources (the company's own website, Poltorak/Lerner publications, company press releases (possibly picked up in other media), etc. A quick Google will show you that the GPCI initals are not very prominently connected to General Patent Corporation International, the way they are with many other IP law firms (COJK for example).  Nowhere have I seen any indication of how many people work for the company, or what attorneys they have on staff (as virtually all laws firms do -- listing attorney bios and specialties).  All indications are that this is a two-person company with a website.  Emcee (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with that issue separately. I'd heard of GPC/GPCI before this article; they're reasonably well known in the patent field, because they've been involved in some high-profile cases.  GPCI's head legal guy doesn't seem to be very notable on his own, though.  --John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as he seems to have written the standard books on the subject. DGG (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How have you ascertained that his two co-authored books are the "standard"? As mentioned, there are no independent analytical or critical reviews or other information cited that support your statement.  Emcee (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has enough sources to meet WP:BIO. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and observation My first comment is that this is not a vote, it is a discussion -- meaning "Keep" or "Delete should be supported with arguments, hopefully that would address the grounds of the AfD. My observation (which admittedly may entirely be coincidence), is that 3 of the 4 "Keep" votes have come from users who spend most of their time on articles relating to Jewish topics (Jaygj, Yehoishophot Oliver, and the article's creator, PinchasC); the fourth appears to be an anti-deletionist when it comes to bios of academics.  Emcee (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. It is hard to prove a negative - IANAL but I do have two close friends who are UK patent agents, and neither has ever heard of this man - he did not write any of the standard texts which are used in the UK (Bainbridge, White, Terrell et al.). I cannot comment on his notability inside the US, and whether it alone satisfies WP:BIO. Since patent law is itself a fairly narrow area, of interest to a small proportion of the population, I would have thought it very hard for any patent attorney to satisfy WP:BIO unless they had caused some major paradigm shift or were famous for something else. Magnate (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The article appears heavily padded, but the parts that seem most like a claim of notability in it to me are the Zahn case and the two books. But we still have no evidence that those things actually are important, such as reviews of the books or articles about Zahn describing the importance of Lerner's role in paving new directions in intellectual property law. In the absence of such evidence, Lerner should be presumed non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (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.