Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Maher (lawyer)


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Paul Maher (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant notability, outside perhaps of legal trade press. Article is (self?) promo bumpf. Heliotom (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - disclaimer, I saw the article because I was responding to a request for protection as anonymous users were removing the AFD template. I think there's enough referencing and independent sources (including The Times, Legal500, and Legal Business) to establish notability. Fish +Karate  12:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've cleaned the article up and removed the most egregious bumpf. I still don't think he really passes GNG, there's only one non trade press article, but as nearly every source referenced is behind a paywall it's hard to tell for sure. It still reads like a CV, which ain't a good sign.Heliotom (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Notable. Satisfies GNG. There is no "legal trade press". Law is an academic discipline studied at universities and the Inns of Court, and a function of government performed by Parliament and the courts. Neither could be described as a trade. A solicitor is a court officer (ie a government official), not a tradesman. Further, there is no sharp distinction between practioners and academics in this field because they are all "learned" and competent to write works of scholarship (at least in theory). Hence the textbooks are largely written by judges and advocates. Further, legal publications are aimed at university professors and students, and at judges and other government officials, litigants and anyone potentially affected by the law (which is probably everyone eventually) as much as at advocates. Traditionally they have been aimed at the educated lay public who happen to be interested as well. In any event "trade press" is not a valid argument against notability. Nothing in GNG or BIO supports this concept, which happens to be nonsense and clearly has a tendency to "smear" valid scholarly sources and is therefore a menace to the project. There are other s′′ources in GBooks and elsewhere (search for eg "Paul Maher"+solicitor), not presently included in the article. In any event, The Times is such an exalted source that it normally suffices by itself. James500 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There certainly is a legal trade press, even if you're too pompous to acknowledge it. https://www.google.ae/search?q="legal+trade+press"&oq="legal+trade+press"&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7215j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8.


 * The idea that a single mention in the Times qualifies a subject automatically for GNG is laughable. Heliotom (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) The number of sources that contain the words "legal trade press" is very small for this purpose. If a "legal trade press" really existed, we would expect a much larger number of sources, since there is a large body of literature on this area of bibliography. At best, this looks like a very small minority viewpoint. (2) Those sources don't look particularly reliable. There is nothing there by, for example, law librarians who are recognised as experts in legal bibliography, as far as I can see. Moreover, the sources are generally passing comments of a kind that don't look like they were intended to be particularly precise, much less to assert the existence of a major phenomena in a rigorous way that we could take seriously. There is very little by way of attempts at a definition, and no definition that includes biography. It is generally not even clear exactly what these sources are talking about. (3) The expression "legal trade press" seems to be a neologism that lacks sufficient sources to prove that such a thing really exists or even to establish what the expression means with a tolerable degree of precision. (4) This neologism appears to me to be a self-contradiction. The law is not a trade: In fact, there are a stack of really convincing first rate sources saying that a profession is not a trade: . Accordingly, there cannot be a "legal trade" to possess its own press. The neologism is nonsense. QED. (5) Ultimately, all of this is academic. "Trade press" is not a valid argument for deletion. There is nothing in the relevant notability guidelines to support such an argument. It has no basis in policy or guideline and this nomination is a waste of time. James500 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go, from such an exalted source as The Times. That's all you need apparently. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/law-firm-set-for-collapse-after-troubled-takeover-x5xpp7xfh
 * all the article suggest at the moment is that he holds or has held a couple of senior positions in a couple of law firms. That does not make an individual notable

Heliotom (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Also, for fun, here are some famously unreliable sources. You're right, it clearly doesn't exist

The New York Times 

Bloomberg

The American Bar Association 

The University of Law
 * The mere appearance of an expression in a tiny number of sources does not prove anything. Especially when there are other sources that disagree, and provide detailed explanations as to why they disagree. Some people speak very loosely and vaguely, and it is not even clear that the tiny number of sources that use that expression are talking about the same thing. The way in which you are conflating those sources is precisely the sort of "original synthesis" that we don't allow on this project. If all those sources referred to someone called "John Smith" without giving any further explanation, the fact they use the same name would not prove they were talking about the same person. "Legal trade press" is a perfect example of an expression that is so vague that it is almost gibberish. The NYT and Bloomberg are not particularly compelling sources for this. They are not as reliable for this as, for example, a medical, legal or library science publication. The University of Law is a blog (that my browser will not load). The ABA Journal is just one article of the many articles by different authors in that periodical, and in several other articles authors writing in the ABA Journal say that the law is not a trade: . In other articles they say the law is a profession: (meaning I may now be able to invoke other sources that say professions generally are not trades). I could explain each of your sources away as a "slip of the pen". None of them attempts a justification or explanation of their use of the word "trade". They just name drop. And since there are lots of sources that contradict yours, the most you are doing is proving the existence of a (POV) body of opinion, that is not even established to be the majority opinion. James500 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Denying the existence of something does cause it to cease to exist. Especially when what you’re essentially trading in is semantics from a past age where people cared much more about the difference between a profession and a trade. You’ll note everything from the ABA you cite comes from the 50s to 70s.


 * what you’ve not done while getting your knickers in a twist about the legal trade press is shown any real reason why Maher is notable. I don’t see much depth of coverage beyond saying he hold a senior positions in a law firm. That is not inherently notable.Heliotom (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Past age? No, not true. Here's one from 2015. James500 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you've found the trade press article, so hopefully we can get back to the actual point.Heliotom (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades Godric  07:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment yes I wouldn't have said I'd have taken James5000' argument. In any case, Industry publications make up a high proportion here. Working out which ones are posher versions of trade magazines and which ones are closer of focused news/journals (if any) is fairly important. This is particularly difficult without access to any of the sources. The Times source does read as if it is launching into SIGCOV rather than a summary piece, so AGF-ing that seems like a good source. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That is a complete misconception. Most legal periodicals are essentially scholarly publications that are primarily interested in the law itself (eg legislation and case law). Dismissing legal periodicals as "industry publications" would involve dismissing publications such as the Cambridge Law Journal, published by the University of Cambridge. That is what is being collaterally attacked here. James500 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I think I should also point out again that "trade press" is not a valid argument for deletion. Trade magazines are reliable independent secondary sources for the purpose of GNG. There is nothing in GNG that allows them to be rejected. Nothing. And that is the bottom line. James500 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly you can only claim collateral source attacks if I don't happen to have included any consideration of classifications and quality. That is not the case. More importantly, "Trade magazines are reliable independent secondary sources" - skipping past the irony of the negatives of classifying everything in one go, that's a very broad statement. It is also false. It depends on the trade magazine, obviously, but many fail to be independent as they want to benefit the companies they talk about, and a heavily overlapping group are not reliable because that requires giving incomplete/incorrect facts. Nosebagbear (talk)
 * p.s. "And that is the bottom line." - not a great finisher for a discussion based process even if you'd made a Socrates slapdown. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * p.p.s Lastly - none of my response sets out which sources are which group, it hasn't yet been made clear. Why not pick a couple of the strongest non-news sources and make clear why they're so good. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's precisely one source - the Times - that is a reliable source, which is about what you would expect for the London office head of a mid-ranked US law firm. The reason we don't regard "trade press" (call it what you will) as generally being WP:RS is because most such publications are tiny affairs, run on a shoestring without fact checking, and are read only by a handful of people. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:Fiachra10003: The Law Society Gazette is the official gazette of a quango. It has a circulation of well over one hundred thousand. Its circulation approaches that of a national newspaper in the UK and significantly greater than that of national newspapers in, for example, Australia. There are something like 130,000 solicitors in England and Wales and they all get a copy of the gazette by virtue of having a practice certificate. Further, university (law) libraries generally have it, and the academics and students read it. To claim that is read by no one is precisely the sort of collateral attack that I was complaining about above. It is not run on a shoestring with no fact checking either. The publications of the governing bodies of professions are not trade press and generally have a level of scholarship at least equal to that the publications of universities (source: Piedmont College library website). As far as I can see, the Law Society Gazette is (within its area of expertise) actually a more reliable source than The Times. As for the claim that trade magazines are generally unreliable, Piedmont College library again says you are wrong. It says that trade publications are difficult to distinguish from scholarly publications. The University of Rhode Island library website talks as though scholarly and professional publications were entirely equivalent. I'm sure I could dig up more sources that say that the "trade" smear is nonsense. As for the rest of the sources in the article, there is no evidence that they are as you describe them. You claim no one reads them, but you have not produced their Audit Bureau of Circulation figures or OCLC library holdings or anything like that to prove it. As I have pointed out, the law is a very large profession in England (about 150,000 practising solicitors and barristers plus academics, students, judges, court officials, and many government departments; also many businesses are affected) and you would not expect the most popular titles to have a small readership. I should also point out that circulation is not a test of reliability. If it was, the Daily Mail (which we have banned) would be the most reliable source in England, and academic journals published by universities would be amongst the least reliable. The primary test for reliability is the credentials of the author, in which case the Law Society Gazette, at least, is an unequivocally reliable source. James500 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fiachra10003's comment is only true in certain situations - trade mags having a biased purpose is a more common reason for concern. It was never claimed by any of us that large readership meant reliable source, so arguments meant defeating that are somewhat wasted.
 * You aren't going to manage a universal overturning of trade (or at least legal trade) publications judgements here for several reasons a) We don't have the consensus capability to grant it b) it's deliberately reticent but permissive as it stands, encouraging a judge on individual basis. Sourcing the basis for judging comparable sourcing is odd - not necessarily wrong, but tricky, since if that is allowed we risk a recursive loop as we judge what basis (pour example) the Piedmont College library has to make sourcing judgements that override other viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Law Society Gazette is, in my view, a reliable source, but the article only mentions Maher in passing: "Rowe's head of corporate, Paul Maher, retains his role." WP:BASIC states that if "...the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The Gazette is exactly that type of "trivial coverage". Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, for many years I managed a budget that included a significant expense line for trade publications. Every year, the question of which publications to spend it on was a challenge.  Many such journals had only one or two reporters who would print what you told them, especially if you were spending several thousand dollars on subscriptions - and sometimes would print stuff that was completely made up. The reason we don't rely on these types of publications is because they lack the personnel and processes needed to report reasonably reliable facts. The New York Times, mentioned above, does have such processes: multiple layers of fact checkers and editors as well as mechanisms for correcting their errors. And they still often get it wrong. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIASED "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". We can't accept Fiachra10003's personal knowledge unless it has been published in a reliable source or can otherwise be supported by some kind of verifiable evidence (WP:IAC). In particular, we cannot assume that any personal experience that editor might have had is typical. According to The Brief, which seems to be a spin off of The Times, the periodicals called The Lawyer and Legal Week are actually the leading publications in their field. Reliable sources in GBooks and GScholar and elsewhere do cite them. They are included in Whittaker's Almanac. The Lawyer has been in publication since 1987. I think it would be better to find out how many reporters these publications have, than to make generalisations about the number that others have. I can't see anything in WP:RS that would justify the rejection of any of these sources or trade publications in general, without the production of verifiable supporting evidence. I can produce instances of periodicals said to be trade magazines being of demonstrably superior quality, such as this. James500 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I cant see anything in the article that indicates him being noteworthy for a stand-alone article, just one of many. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. GNG does not require that a topic be unique or even unusual. "One of many" is not an argument that has any basis in policy or guideline. And it is not even factually accurate in Maher's case. The reality is that he is remarkable and exceptional in that he is was head of a massive billion pound global firm (Mayer Brown) and is now vice chairman of a similar sized firm. There are very few such people in Britain. As a general rule of thumb, these things tend to become notable around the $100 million dollar level, never mind ten to twenty times that figure. James500 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Per Fiachra. &#x222F; WBG converse 04:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Stench of advocacy here and fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:23, 22 June 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.