Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William T. Reid IV


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

William T. Reid IV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence of notability. Content is just a list of trials, none of which is important enough to merit an article. The recognition part is promotional nonsense based on publications created to do just that.  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this article as a (properly declared) paid entry working on behalf of Reid, Collins and Tsai. So my point of view is biased. However, I know quite a lot about the matter. My arguments for contesting the deletion: 1) process - the page has been created through the AfC process and was approved by an independent moderator. 2) official posts – Reid held official post, former Assistant United States Attorney 3) notability – mentioned from the various angles an media (Reuters, Bloomberg, USA Today, WSJ). Some of the references were gone after extensive edits – please check the version of the article with “Notable cases”. It’s a pity that this part was removed by an editor who apparently has no law degree. 4) professional notability – Reid worked on important cases covered by media and include into books. As an example InverWorld case was mentioned in two law books including the UN publication on trade law. 5) professional recognition - selected to Thomson Reuters' Super Lawyers in 2005 – 2006 and 2011 – 2017, included into several independent ratings (not editorial view, but judged by vote), has coverage about him and his law firm at professional media (Law360, DragonLaw, The National Law Journal). To, you forgot to inform the author about your nomination. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * A notable case is a case about which we have an article.
 * A mention is not significant coverage
 * We have never accepted the ratings you mention as evidence of notability. They exist for the purpose of helping the firm promote their services.
 * Approval at AfD means nothing more than the opinion of the reviewer that the article is likely to survive AfD. Many do not.  DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, please try to not to cast aspersions on other editors' qualifications. Funnily enough, I (the editor who removed the 'notable cases') do happen to have a law degree, but that is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The cases were not notable, and listing them does not establish the notability of the lawyer, particularly when they were basically primary sources with passing mentions. Also, note that there is no requirement at WP:AFD for to notify you, even though it can be seen as courteous. You have generally been one of the better paid editors around here, but the amount of time your contributions are taking up from volunteers here in order to promote your clients seems to be starting to wear thin for a number of us. Melcous (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear I am very sorry for profiling you wrong. Please accept my appologies. As to the involvent of other editors, I can't agree with you. I asked for your expert advice only once and it was long ago, for the Patrick Sweeney article. I didn't ask you to edit my other articles or contibute to them. I'd like to think of you as of my "guardian angel" though and certainly learn a lt from you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW,, I always try to notify. I use the WP:Twinkle system of nomination scripts. They work right about 95% of the time, Sometimes they go the  wrong editor, sometimes  either my computer or the WP systems seems to  keep them from executing completely.  Sorry about that.  The best solution to an afd is that someone improves the article so it becomes satisfactory, and that is of course why notifications are important. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per, including his later comments. This is paid publicity for the firm, exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else ("... not identifiable as advertising to consumers ...", likely to "... mislead consumers into believing [it is] independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself ...") that is considered "deceptive" – and thus illegal – in the United States under rules laid down by the Federal Trade Commission (some discussion here). Wikimedia projects are governed by American law. We do not tolerate promotion of any kind, and we certainly cannot tolerate promotion that may be illegal. Apart from anything else, it undermines and compromises our reputation for neutrality, and weakens any credibility we have managed to acquire. Articles like this actively damage the project (and by extension, so do the editors who create them).
 * It should be deleted for that reason; but in case anyone is wondering, there's no indication of any notability independent of the firm, so a redirect will not be needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear thank you for sharing your point of view. Just wanted to clarify one thing. There is an official COI editing guideline and this article fully complies with it. Paid nature of contribution was clearly stated from the very beginning and the article passed Articles for Creation process, as suggested – UNLIKE some other American lawyer articles (yes, I am full aware of WP:OSE, no need to remind me about it) that were created from one-time, zero-history accounts and contain “exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else”. I've seen many of them working on this article and looking for references/guidance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I do know that you followed our internal guidelines when you took over the job of creating this – for that, thank you! But a reader who happens across the article does not know anything of that history or background. We ought to put a big sign across the top of it, "", but we can't do that; to leave it here would be to deceive our readers in precisely the way that the FTC does not allow. The only possible course of action is deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This kind of discussion should probably take place at WP:COIN. My view is that stopping the flood of undeclared edits with current measures is a total utopia (the demand for getting to Wikipedia is simply too high, there are too many ways around it and the resources to stop it are scarce). I also think that the kind of discussion/attitude that we have here and the possible outcome of it greatly discourages fair playing paid editors from disclosing their edits and following official processes. As such, it only pushes more editors to the grey area, makes the "hunt for the Red October" harder and compromises Wikipedia even more. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I would be very glad to hear your suggestions about more effective measures we could take. Your's is a different Point of view than most of us, and we need additional input. Please use my talk page for that--it's a better place than this discussion. .  DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I took a pretty hard look at many of the citations - in part because the article is suspiciously overcited.  The National Law Journal and Law360 coverage falls squarely within WP:ROUTINE: You can't scratch your nose in corporate legal circles without attracting a short article in either or both of these journals.  The Highland Capital matters are not about Mr. Reid, who attracts only a brief mention as the plaintiffs' litigator, but about their case against Credit Suisse.  Similarly for the Fastow article. The Weltwoche article is the only one that comes close to actually discussing Reid himself (and Weltwoche is a credible Swiss magazine) but the article is still 90% about UBS and the reference to Reid is only in the context of the litigation. Overall, Mr. Reid simply hasn't attracted any attention beyond the routine for a capable corporate litigator. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per DGG and Fiachra, being a successful corporate (and involved) litigator is not automatic grounds for notability. II  | (t - c) 07:12, 7 March 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.