Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Cole & Associates


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Scott Cole & Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article about a local law firm fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG because it has no mainstream coverage. Law360 provides four of the sources; Business Wire (in other words, press releases) provides another three. I deleted two references because they did not mention Cole, as well as Cole’s own self-published book as a source. The article was written by IPs and Special Purpose Accounts, including User:LegalTruth821 and User:Scottedwardcole. The latter has been loudly complaining about other people's edits and edit warring to get his own material into the article. MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Business Wire citations should be considered to be unreliable. Business Wire is a pay for PR site, which apparently have been written by the business. The user “Scottedwardcole” has a fair amount of edits, to this entry, “Scott Cole & Associates, APC”. To keep Wikipedia’s integrity, businesses who use the site should be held to the highest standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTruth821 (talk • contribs) — LegalTruth821 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete COI-driven article with no significant coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. A COI editor having edited an article is not in itself reason to delete it. We seem to have at least two apparently reliable sources discussing the organization and/or its founder and their work. And that's just from merely clicking the Google link provided above (see WP:BEFORE). Meet the Lawyer Suing Equifax and Apple, from SF Weekly, is based in a reporter's interview with Cole but explicitly says "Cole is well-known among his peers for his work in the 1994 case" and also has detailed coverage of different aspects of his work over an extended historical period. Meanwhile Attorney discusses the California Employment Lawsuit from LawyersAndSettlements.com, although again based on an interview carried out by their reporter, again has extensive analysis of the firm's work. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, this article is not about Scott Cole but his firm. Secondly, I would hardly call LawyersAndSettlements.com and one article in SF Weekly significant coverage. I did my diligence and conducted a search and found nothing more than these two sources and passing mentions, which is below the standards of WP:GNG. Being well known in professional circles isn't a GNG pass and even if that case was notable than it would most likely be a WP:BLP1E situation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP1E. Which of those three conditions do you think is met? MPS1992 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * it would if hids notability is from a single case in 1994. More apt would be WP:GNG. If a three person fork with only two reliable sources, one of which is a trade related blog and the other of which is a local news story, and a few passing mentions meets notability, than pretty much every general counsel, corporate chief of litigation and class-action litigator would meet those standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All of them? None of them? Two of them? MPS1992 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No? OK, so if you can't say which of the three conditions for WP:BLP1E are met, then we can assume it's not relevant here. As for the rest, San Francisco and the Bay Area is not what anyone would call "local" -- it's a huge metropolitan area and is also the leading high technology region in the world, which rather goes to the heart of what this topic is notable for. And as for "trade-related blog", see WP:NEWSBLOG; legal publications are normally the best coverage for organizations in the legal field. MPS1992 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I literally said that GNG would be more apt. Secondly, just because its a major metropolitan area doesn't mean its not local news and still I don't think I see enough to merit GNG. That's just my opinion. I think you need to cool off a bit dude. GPL93 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment -- User:Scottedwardcole did not "edit war to get his own material into the article" but, in fact, was removing completely unsourced WP:POV material added by a WP:SPA in this series of edits, and then reverted back to by experienced Wikipedia editors who should know better. User:Scottedwardcole should not have been edit-warring, nor indeed editing the article at all, but their good faith edits and attempt to request article protection were aimed at dealing with the disruption caused by the WP:SPA account in repeatedly adding unsourced material in a manner that I would consider vandalism. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the series of edits you link to - the ones Scottedwardcole reverted - were not “inserting unsourced POV material” and were certainly not “vandalism”. And the “experienced Wikipedia editors who should know better” were correct to restore them. The only unsourced claim, now removed, was that the firm has moved to Concord. The three-attorney size of the firm has now been confirmed by the firm’s own website. The book he was promoting as a source was in fact written by Scott Cole. (And self published, and so shamelessly self-promoting he should have been embarrassed to put his name on it.) The “citation needed” tags were correct, which is why those uncited items have now been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, so the three-attorney part is sourced (though arguably not very appropriate that early in the lede). The majority of the material added in the edits I highlighted was unsourced. The SPA was here for a reason. (Do take a look at the nature of the only three edits in that editing history not directly related to Scott Cole and Associates). MPS1992 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to defend Legaltruth, who clearly is an SPA (as I pointed out in my nomination) and whose contributions to this article have either been confirmed or removed. Let's discuss this article on its merits: whether it meets GNG and NCORP, or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A few points: 1. the tone of what you wrote sounds angry and punitive. I should be able to complain when people change my information and make it factually untrue. 2. "Loudly complaining": I expressed my frustration that a user was making changes and saying the site violated a rule but then wouldn't tell me what the violation was. It seems like a big game as opposed to just working collaboratively to solve a problem. 3. The Book I wrote: You angrily say I "shamelessly" promote the book. Well, that's what authors do. They promote their books. I guess Apple shamelessly promotes phone. No further comment necessary. I guess that goes for the various articles I have authored or co-authored. Can’t cite them either. 4. I'd love to have more sources for information on the site, but your rules also say pages cannot look like marketing. Much of the information out there about lawyers, whomever writes it, speaks to the ability of their work. You'd consider that marketing, so what's a business supposed to do? You mention Law360, for example. I just checked Law360 and around 100 articles have mentioend our firm on that one cite. Am I supposed to list them all so Wiki can see we're a relevant enterprise? 5. The firm is based in Oakland. It does have 3 attorneys today. I never said it didn't. We had 4 a couple of weeks ago, and we’ve had 7-9 in the past. We may have 4-5 in a few weeks. We have a core team but then it changes often depending on a lot of circumstances. I never contested this point though, and I still don't think Wiki really understands the nature of my complaint. As to the number of attorneys, someone recently put that info in the site, meaning we’ll have to change it often (we’d really rather not have to update the page that much). Clearly, a user wants us to look irrelevant. 6. All this negativity to the page and my comments feels very punitive (either due to our profession as attorneys or because we dared to contest something a Wiki user did). I am not an expert at using Wiki but just want to get the information correct on this page. I don't appreciate users trying to make diminutive comments ("e.g., "the little town of Concord") about an office that's done more for California workers than almost any firm out there, nor is it fair that we have to give citations for things like what causes we support, or pro bono work (do I really have to cite cases?), our office location when Wiki does not requires that of any other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.96.105 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please clarify exactly what information currently in your article is "factually untrue". If it's wrong we can fix it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Per a point made by User:MPS1992 above, I have moved "three attorneys" from the lead sentence to the infobox. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:VANISPAM. I see no indication that either the attorney or the firm is notable. Coverage is about the firm's cases, not the firm or attorney. The only reference that's actually about the firm is the link to the firm's own website. The coverage they get in the news is just the ordinary coverage of the cases.
 * Perhaps certain of the cases are notable, in which case articles on the notable cases may be justified. But that would not extend notability to the firm (or to any particular attorney) unless the firm or attorney gets sufficient coverage to establish notability. Notability is not contagious: WP:NOTINHERITED.
 * To the editors using this AFD for cleanup, please conduct your discussion on Talk:Scott Cole & Associates, and leave this page for the discussion of notability. AFD is not for cleanup TJRC (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt, per TJRC. Some of these cases might be notable, but the firm itself doesn't have sufficient sourcing to support an article. Also noting that I just cleaned up some citation spamming from an associated IP. Given the spamming we should go ahead and salt this now to save ourselves the grief later. MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to my earlier delete vote I also endorse salting the page given that a member of Scott Cole & Associates more less admits to using this article as a means to promote the firm's business. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (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.