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. henrik•talk 19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Siderius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to prove that this lawyer is notable. The article has 4 references, but they all just prove he is actually a lawyer. I'm sure it's nice to be a lawyer, but I don't think it makes you inherently notable. Article's subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dylan above. There are already hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles like this one, describing persons and things of borderline notability, whose existence is justified by one or two mentions somewhere - hardly "significant coverage," as WP:GNG prescribes. --Seduisant (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Against my better judgement I have carefully checked out ALL the bulleted points in wp:gng;

• Nothing in the article is original research
• I have used the Seattle Times, American City Business Journals, and actual court documents as references – I believe all of those are reliable sources?
• Only two of the eleven references are not secondary?
• Independent of the subject See above
• significant coverage This one is the most troublesome because it is highly subjective. However alll that is in the article right now is supported by the references (no original research) – so the question is: Does the article itself contain enough information to demonstrate that the subject is notab le (or that it has promise to be when other wikipedians start helping to improve it instead of consentarting on deleting it)? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW I forgot to address your point that said "There are already hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles like this one...". FYI I checked all articles about other lawyers who are currently practicing in the state of Washington and guess how many there are? Would you believe if I told you that only one other living lawyer in the state of Washington has an article at Wikipedia? I don’t know about you but I find it very strange. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Only can find he was a lawyer and involved in lawsuits. Bgwhite (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why you say this: There is a lot more than simply being a lawyer involved in lawsuits in the article? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as what is in the article does not establish notability. A Google news search comes up with 21 hits, but all appear to be trivial mentions of him. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found a lot more than 21 hits, admittedely not all from Google? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has Have any of you who voted "delete" above, including the nominator (who has already tried to delete this article on three other occassions), actually even looked at the article in question? Are you simply trying to get rid of the contents instead of improving the article?

The nom says

The article has 4 references, but they all just prove he is actually a lawyer

which is clearly not so. Everything in the article is drawn directly from the refs:

• Re: the previous attempts to remove this article from Wikipedia. The first two attempts were as speedy deletions, which were contested, so could not proceed. The 3rd was as a WP:BLPPROD, as the article was about a living person and was unreferenced. The article creator added a reference, so it escaped on a technicality again. No improvements were made to cause the article to escape deletion. No improvements were made subsequently, despite my leaving a message on the creator's talkpage on 12th February. None of the references offered up give any indication of notability, merely confirm his existence. Existing isn't grounds for notability. Kindly provide some significant coverage in reliable sources to prove this guy meets either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I searched in good faith and found no such coverage. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two speedy deletions within 2 days of each other (both by the nominator)?
• You contaradict yourself: you say that only one reference was added when the article currently has FOUR
• The article says a lot more than "confirm his existence' - but no one here seems to be interested in actually checking this out, sigh..
• The "article creator" would have a lot more time to find references and improve the article if it was not necessary to spend all this time in AFD discussions that are taking up everyone's time. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two of the "references" are from his own law firm, the other two are about the cases he is involved in, not him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2012‎

• This entry above is was unsigned and is still undated. The article has been improved and now includes eleven references. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Plenty of primary sources (which comes with the territory if you're a litigating attorney) and quite a few passing mentions, none of which are in-depth (except for the "rate-your-lawyer" sites and his own company promo) so this individual remains far from passing WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not clear to me exactly which part of the very lengthy WP:BIO this article fails. There are currrently three references from the Seattle Times and one from bizjournals.com/seattle in the article - are you saying these are not good enough secondary sources to establish Wikipeidia notability? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What I said - they are "passing mentions, none of which are in-depth" coverage of the individual. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am just curious to find out why you labeled your last comment done. Does it mean:

• You are done (wasting your precious time trying to explain something to an ignoramus?
• This discussion is done and you intend to close it soon?
• Something else?

• My last comment This has been another frustrating experience for me as an "article starter", something I wish I could be left alone to do to improve the coverage of wikpedia. I have started something in the order of 100 articles on wikipedia and hundreds more categories and, so far I estimate, only half have survived deletion, and only because I fought tooth and nail to Keep them . It is obvious that tomorrow one more of “my” articles will be gone, and I feel so empty because I just wasted my Sunday and have sunk way too much effort and emotion trying to convince a bunch of uninterested wikipedians in the value of my donation to wikipedia

• I guess I better leave before I start seriously insulting those here who have insulted me, and before I get blocked from wikipedia one more time. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All of which could be fixed if you only started article about notable people. I sincerely recommend reading the notability guidelines thoroughly, including the career-specific ones for people as well as the general ones. You'll have a much better time here on Wikipedia if you play by those rules. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ray Siderius is notable, PLEASE READ and respond to my previous comments above.
• you have not said where this career-specific section is in regards to lawyers Ottawahitech (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not aware of laywer-specific guidelines, but that's not really relevant. ALL biographical subjects must meet the notamility guidelines set out at WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. The general notability guideline, set out at WP:GNG, is the ultimate standard. If the subject of an article doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, then that subject isn't notable. It's the "significant coverage" part of this that you seem to be having difficulty with, despite several editors pointing you in the direction of the appropriate guidelines. To restate the case, simply being a lawyer doesn't make a person notable, nor does winning cases. It's necessary for them to have received significant coverage; that is, coverage which focuses on them specifically, not just mentions them in a report about a case. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are not aware of lawyer specific guidelines why did you "sincerely recommend reading the ...the career-specific" guidelines? ...and since you don't think this is relevant let me ask you if you think that the article you wrote for wikipedia [1] had more "significant coverage? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We aren't really getting anywhere are we? I meant read the notability guidelines for all people, since you have a lot of them getting nominated for deletion. Your ad hom attack is barely worth answering. It was, I think, my very first article, and villages are presumed notable in any case. Read the guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to read tons of guidelines, what I want is to understand the rationale. Why are villages, no matter how small and insignificant, automatcally notable even without any references at all, while lawyers need more than 11 references (how many exactly and how detailed) to be included here? What else at Wikipedia does not require any references for support?Ottawahitech (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You misunderstand. All articles need sources, whether about a village or a person or whatever else. There were none in that article that I wrote many moons ago because I didn't know the rules. Then I went and read the guidelines, familiarised myself with the policies etc etc. That's what you need to do. Villages, towns, cities etc are presumed notable, but still need sources. People aren't presumed notable, and the sources need to prove that they are. The sources for this article prove no such thing. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying that anyone who wants to start new articles at Wikipedia must first master this lengthy, convoluted, undeciferable list of rules, sub-rules and regulations?
• BTW did you yourself know all the rules before you wrote your article? Can you explain why a small village in England is automatically notable but a mall in Saskatoon, Canada is not? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We're straying off-topic now slightly, however; you don't need to read tons of pages of stuff; just the general notability guideline to begin with. If you're writing an article about a person, then of course it's preferable that you read the guideline for biographies too. Why wouldn't it be? Your attempt to build up a strawman argument is strange. As it stands right now, Ray Siderius isn't notable based on either the references in the article, or anything I came across when I searched before nominating. Birdlip is clearly notable. A mall in Canada may well be notable, but it too would need to meet the general notability guideline. Your time would be better served in either reading those guidelines you hate so much, or providing references of the standard the project requires. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ray Siderius is a notable lawyer:

• He challenged and won declaring a Washington state law unconstitutional before the Washington Supreme court

• As a result he clearly meets WP:ANYBIO:

2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

• Through a class action lawsuit he is currently represnting individuals against an healthcare insurance giant

all this is in the article supported by several secondary reliable sources. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails as to significant coverage (WP:GNG), fails on all other notability criteria as well (WP:ANYBIO, etc).

PS. ANYBIO provides: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. [or] The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This is a higher standard than basic GNG. Anyone asserting this subject passes under these criteria should demonstrate as much or have his vote discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please elaborate and explain why you believe the subject fails both (WP:GNG andWP:ANYBIO? You are a latecomer to the party and may have missed my comments to Seduisant that went carefully thru all the requirements of WP:ANYBIO and have reached the opposite conclusion. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for questioning whether I bothered to read the discussion for being a "latecomer." I read it, and I thought your villages bit was cute and revealing. The subject does not receive substantial coverage – that is, coverage that is in-depth and non-trivial. Rather, speaking in the capacity of a legal representative, particularly to media, is in due course and cannot help this subject WP:INHERIT notability from what's actually being covered: his clients' cases. Along that vein, court filings such as the glut of those currently used as citations, are categorically not WP:RS. Just because the subject successfully challenged a state law does not automatically qualify the subject for WP:ANYBIO; the state law case should be demonstrated in reliable sources as having the impact you assert above, and the subject himself should receive more than passing coverage there to indicate his contribution. Leading a class action suit is nothing close to any part of notability. You may have come to another conclusion, but consensus indicates this subject probably isn't encyclopedically notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.