Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorie Masters

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorie Masters

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

Utterly promotional piece on a candidate for political office who has so far won no elections. At the very best WP:BLP1E would apply, and Masters should be mentioned in an article on the election. Unless she either wins or is the subject of more widespread coverage, there's no need to have an article on her. Huon (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if not notable or stubify to resolve promotional issues. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not based on her being notable as a politician, but notable as a prominent lawyer. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Masters is a notable attorney and author. (Also, other candidates in this race have Wiki pages and they are less notable than she is.)

Masters is notable regardless of this election. She is a famous attorney who has been the subject of press coverage before this election, including an article in the Washington Post (cited) for getting the biggest human trafficking jury verdict in history. Proof of her legal notoriety is also evident by the long list of legal awards she has received - "Top 10 Super Lawyer", "Top 250 Women in Litigation" and others listed on the page.
Masters is a notable author. She is a published author of 2 books and 144 articles.
Here is one book: Liability Insurance in International Arbitration: The Bermuda Form
Here is another book: Insurance Coverage Litigation
Masters is notable for being President of the Women's Bar of DC and for holding Board positions at notable non-profit organizations. She has also received press coverage for her public work on behalf of DC statehood and is a notable person in that field.
The Washington Post, Washington Times, Blade, DC City Paper and other papers have covered Masters during this election for DC attorney general - it's the first time that DC has ever elected this position, and it's a very notable event and Masters is a notable candidate.
Huon wrote that Masters should not have an article unless she wins. 3 other candidates - who are far less notable than Masters and who are not famous authors or award-winning attorneys - have Wiki pages, and none of them have won an election yet.

Edward "Smitty" Smith, Karl Racine, and Paul Zukerberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfilipovich (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to point #5 above, please see the Other Stuff Exists article, which basically says that the existence of one bad article does not justify another.Primefac (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to point #1: There's exactly one Washington Post article cited, "Lorie Masters seeks D.C. attorney general post in November election". I checked all third-party references given in the article, and excepting this one article they're all passing mentions or name-drops, not significant coverage. Huon (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply, as one of its three required conditions is that the individual is low-profile. WP:LOWPROFILE sez: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Political candidates actively seek out media attention. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, WP:BIO1E is the relevant link. This is not an issue restricted to living persons, nor to "people not actively seeking out media attention". Masters is seeking out attention alright, but that's not a reason we should give it. Huon (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most relevant set of criteria is WP:POLITICIAN: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. (A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.)" After a Google search, she seems to qualify--I see three major press articles primarily devoted to her on the first page. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is indeed a piece of propaganda writing, complete with bogus references that make it look all encyclopedic (census figure for Fremont, Michigan). If it's trimmed down, I might reconsider. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I pared down some of the promotion. Could probably use more work, but it's an improvement. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Phantasmagorian: THANK YOU for taking so much time to edit the page, pare down the promotion, and generally bring the page more in line with Wikipedia's format/style. I really appreciate the time you put into making the page better. I was the original writer of the page, and this is my first attempt to submit something to Wikipedia. I appreciate your constructive assistance. (Also, please note that I only edited 1 sentence of the page you created - I deleted the reference you added to Masters starting as an associate at Jenner & Block, as I think she only worked there as a partner.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfilipovich (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage of her (for GNG) and she doesn't meet the notability standards for politicians. I would think it's better to userfy the article until after the election. If she wins, she's notable, otherwise she's not. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a politician, meets specific criteria laid down in WP:POLITICIAN & Wikipedia:Notability (people)#cite_note-note6-7, as there are multiple newspaper articles focusing on her as a candidate specifically. Also meets WP:GNG for pro bono legal work, especially human trafficking law. Could use more secondary sources cited. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although previous version of article was too-promotional, so article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN. Basically, there was too much emphasis on her campaign for DC Atty General in the previous version, and not enough emphasis on her insurance litigation and other (rather impressive) activism for numerous causes, but hopefully these problems have been fixed. She litigated high-profile insurance cases such as the Hoechst Celanese one in 1997 (see article) with settlement amount in the millions, plus gets top reviews from Benchmark, SuperLawyers, Law 360. Since she's an activism for a wide range of causes (women's rights, DC statehood, human trafficking etc), there are plenty of sources out there suggesting she meets WP:GNG easily, so it does not matter whether she wins the election or not to be notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now makes it clear that she is notable as an attorney. Whether she fails WP:POLITICIAN is, therefore, irrelevant. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable, though article retains a highly self-promotional tone. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her books are second editions so she must be doing something right. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2014 (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.