Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miles Scully

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. Marginally notable (at best), unsourced, promotional... recipe for deletion. I'll note that I'm perhaps relying on my "judgement" to a greater degree than normal, so I won't object to somebody recreating the article more properly. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Scully

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

Insufficient coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Sources just indicate that he's a prominent lawyer at a prominent law firm, but still not someone who's attracted sufficient coverage in RS to merit an article. North of Eden (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople|list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. He's a name partner of a very large law firm and he serves on some major bar association committees and editorial boards. On the minus side, I don't see anything about law review, court appointments, or other major work he's done. The article as submitted was very badly written; I suspect a paralegal or PR type wrote it up for him (if not, and he wrote it, he's an awful writer IMHO). Bearian (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a comment, User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of attorneys is highly impressive. North of Eden (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the references provided thus far. But I can't let the comment pass without noting that the edit history currently includes a dozen different newly-created accounts with no edits outside of this article. Odd. --Finngall ^talk 04:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability in the article, just another lawyer, sources are not independent, and most are about his name being added to the law firms identifier, fails WP:BLP1E. Also, article is a WP:COATRACK, most info is promotional about "one of the ten fastest growing law firms". Kraxler (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gordon & Rees, his law firm. The firm appears to be more notable than he is. This article is hopelessly promotional - "This was in recognition of the contributions Scully made to its meteoric growth," "he devised a plan to expand the firm's national, regional, and local practices and hire great lawyers to represent clients at twice the value of the large firms," "thanks to Scully, Gordon & Rees continued to grow," etc. - and very weakly referenced. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and just to note: none of the other partners in this firm, including the founders, have Wikipedia articles. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2015 (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.